Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 4

Felix ruled by admins to have "a deep lack of understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. I don't feel comfortable about letting anyone with such problem to edit Wikipedia."

 * It might interest anyone who regularly follows the discussion on this page to know that wiki administrators, after studying Felix's behaviour here, have concluded, "Instead of admittance of wrongdoing and promise not to do in in the future, we see a deep lack of understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS. I don't feel comfortable about letting anyone with such problem to edit Wikipedia."


 * Details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Felix-felix


 * Should Felix try to return to altering this entry after his current three-month ban is up, this is worth bearing in mind. (Felix, please stop trying to delete this note; you are currently banned from ediitng this page due to your persistent abuses.) David r from meth productions (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article on Hari is so poor it defies belief.Honestly who cares? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.146.212 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Took a quick peek to see how things were getting on - clearly there's been some drama.


 * But, as we left it last time, there had been promise of compromise. I STILL find it hard to reason why the page, even as it stands, is regarded as so very slanted and POV. Clearly the Archer issue doesn't mass muster on any grounds whatsoever. But more generally, I'm still puzzled as to why other users consider this page as "egomaniacal" and "self-serving". And not simply because both adjectives tacitly insinuate that Hari himself is involved in the supposed puffing...


 * I've argued before that the article is essentially (that is, more or less) neutral. I'd also like to state my disagreement with SamuelSpade's claim that "most of the information contained in this page is not notable" - to say "most" seems to me very strong. Still, lets use your edit as a template for building a good article, as discussed in late 07. And for the anonymous user: I've argued, in agreement with SamuelSpade, that "Views on the Enlightenment" is a somewhat portentous heading for this paragraph. SamuelSpade's "Notable Secularist" heading seems much better. And, if you look back at earlier discussions, you'll find that Dave R has happily agreed to compromise on this. (Although, in terms of finer detail, I suspect he'll fight his corner strongly, as he has every right to do).


 * Still, I'm rather tickled that you think that an op-ed journalist's stance on enlightenment values (at a time when said values have a very interesting place in public discourse) is of little more consequence than his taste in yoghurt. You weren't being flippant, were you? Zafio (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Zafio. I don't think many people at all view it as excessively slanted; it seems to me to be one or two wiki users making this complaint, one of whom has been permenantly banned because his hatred was so extreme and is clearly still posting using almost exactly the same words without signing in. This entry follows a standard journalists' format: summarise their views, give prominent criticisms and biographical details, etc. It compares perfectly well to say Melanie Phillips or George Monbiot or Polly Toynbee or Jonathan Freedland or Mark Steyn. SamuelSpade has made some specific criticisms which are valuable; I don't class him with the people who are posting one-line insults for the entry. The poster who says "who cares?" invites an obvious response: you do, since you feel the need to post here, and other people who care include Amnesty International, the Orwell prize jury, the Independent newspaper, Debrett's.... etc.David r from meth productions (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is at least three who view the page as "excessively slanted". SamuelSpade, as David R rightly says, has provided valuable criticisms. However, I do notice he's dismissed Charles Matthews clarification that notability works on a topic-by-topic rather than fact-by-fact basis. But, despite your claim, neutrality and notability are separate issues. Unless there is something in the wiki rules that specifically says different? Without any precise clarification of this sort, I think to treat notability as if its a neutrality issue is to approach things from quite the wrong direction. It, at least, muddies the waters.

Despite this, I'm taking the liberty of editing some of the article based on SamuelSpade's earlier edit, which David R agreed might prove the basis, and nothing more, for revising the article. This doesn't suggest that I think SamuelSpade's edit reflects the essential notable information. Naturally, too, I've not reverted any of the contentious, Private Eye material.Zafio (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zafio - as I've said before it's not how I would have done it, but I'm happy to compromise with wikipedians who have reasonable arguments, and when the consensus is clearly against me. The only bit I've taken out is the bit about an article six years ago talking about seducing neo-Naizis, which was satirical and, of all his articles, far from the most notable. There's a lot of things I'd put back in before we got round to that. Is that a fair compromise? David r from meth productions (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks David. Thought I'd leave it to you to remove the neo-Nazi thing, although I seem to remember SamuelSpade and yourself horse-traded it a while ago. However, removing it does leave the material on Hari's sexuality a trifle thin - and the phrase "self-described homosexual" is rather quaint! So I've rewritten this a little, using some of the phrasing of the older edit.

Thanks for the compromise. But naturally I'd be happy for you to put in other material you see as appropriate. That's Wikipedia. I hope you like the revised Notable Secularist section, which I think reflects Hari's views well, and I hope is satisfactory for both you and SamuelSpade. I've quite intentionally retained a claim about Hari's belief in enlightenment values, as I think this is notable in context.Zafio (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange to link to three responses to an article Hari wrote in the links as three seperate entries. If you can amalgamate it all into a single line (i.e., here's the article, and hjere's lots of responses) then fine, it can stand. - DavidR86.143.158.2 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hari is not a Marxist
It is entirely false to say Johann Hari is a Marxist. He has repeatedly condemned communism and Marxism:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-should-che-be-an-icon-no-394336.html http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=441 http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=639

A typical quote: "Marxist-Leninism was born in the torture chambers of Tsarism and it became its mirror-image."

Hari has defined himself as a social democrat, who favours the Swedish model, one rejected by Marxists: http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=579

Please do not reinsert these false claims into this entry. -DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.137.235 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Private Eye allegations, and bizarre unsourced claims that Hari is friends with Rosemary West
These are both plainly in breach of BLP rules. Please read through the discussion archive for wiki administrator after wiki administrator ruling that the Private Eye smears against Hari, issued immediately after he criticised the magazine's editor, fail BLP criteria and must not be included. The Rosemary West stuff is just bizarre; if you have a reputable source for it, please tell us what it is.David r from meth productions (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How are they should people not be able to hear the other side to look at hari and see if he is totally factual? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.214.127 (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

liberal?
I removed the text from the first sentence of his description calling him a "left wing" journalist. And I'll continue to do so. Simply because whiny right wingers complain about everyone who isn't George Will doesn't allow some bs clear attack on him not being credible because he is pro free speech and secularism. There's a clear reason why people call O Reilly limbaugh, Hannity, and coulter et al right wing and it's not liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.189.4 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Michèle Renouf
Not strictly on topic for this page, but I have cited an article by Johann Hari on the page dedicated to the associate of David Irving and other Holocaust deniers. A section on the talk page details the problem. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the disputes Hari has had are interesting and pass NOTE criteria. What do others think?
No, they are not interesting and they don't pass note critera. I'm trying to assume good faith but it seems quite possible to me that you have a WP:COI here. 81.170.235.35 (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, on both fronts. Here are the NOTE criteria: to justify inclusion, there needs to have been -

* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2] * "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5] * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]

I think all of these criteria are met strongly. Google Hari's name and any of the people involved in these disputes and you'll see that. I have alwyas made clear plainly that hari is a friend of mine, but I don't think that stops me from being a good wikipedian or following the rules, and many previous editors have agreed, if you look back over the archives here. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.200.168 (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Expose/Article on Dubai
"He was banned from Dubai, and his writing blocked from being accessed there, after writing an expose of the country's abuse of migrant workers and of dissidents."

This reads a bit POVy to me, as while the article would plausibly be widely described as an expose, it implies that abuse of migrant workers and of dissidents does indeed take place in Dubai and despite there existing some reports to suggest that this is the case (as cited by the anon poster who reverted my changes to this sentence), it is a contentious issue. His expulsion from Dubai would certainly accentuate this as being a contentious issue.

An article on a postman would not read "a postman is an underpaid man who delivers letters", despite there being organisations who have written reports suggesting that postmen are underpaid.

What do you think? Petepetepetepete (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a huge deal and I appreciate your consensus-seeking approach.

There has been pretty wide reporting of these - issues, from Human Rights Watch, the BBC, etc, so i do think they are facts. Is there some compromsie we can reach?

Best wishes

DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.97 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A pro-BNP editor is trying to insert a malicious misreading of one of Hari's articles into this entry
An editor who spends all his energy trying to whitewash the BNP on wikipedia - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/194.80.178.1 - is clearly responding to Hari's high profile criticisms of the BNP over the past week by inserting an absurd misreading of a seven-year old article into this entry, claiming he "supports incest." This shouldn't be allowed to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.176.237 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not malicious, it is an article that he wrote about incest and he showed sympathy towards it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are responding to his criticisms of the BNP - which you dedicate your wikipedia energies to white-washing - by inserting a POV misinterpretation of the article into this entry. It's not acceptable. He was describing ht ephenomenon of incest, not "supporting" it, as you absurdly inserted into the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.60.36 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He still seems happy about incest as it is consensual and I have white-washed the BNP because they are receiving slander all the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.178.253 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If Hari's view on incest is worth including per WP:UNDUE we'll need to see some evidence of comment on it by someone other than Hari in a reliable source. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing, trolling, and attacks on Hari removed. This is not a forum. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How should Hari's reporting on Israel be described?
The article contained no reference to H.'s views on Israel, though he has devoted much space to the topic. I inserted such a reference, together with a reference to the factual errors that have been located in H.'s reporting on the subject. This was then deleted by an IP contributor as 'POV'. I do not see how the thoroughly documented article to which I linked can be dismissed as mere 'point of view'. If the references it gives do not qualify as facts, then nothing in all Wikipedia does. The mere fact that it is embarrassing for H. and his fans is neither here nor there: 'inconvenient' is not the same as 'POV'. So I am reverting.Uthor (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right that Hari's views and reporting on israel/Palestine should be included. if you look back through the history of this page, yopu'll see I argued strongly for its inclusion. However, you stated as a fact that he has made "serious errors" in his reporting, which is very obvious POV. I have inserted a neutral account of his work on Israel/Palestine, linking to both his critics and his own response. I'm happy to debate if you think this needs to be expanded, but it should be discussed here before further changes are made. You should be aware this page is closely watched by wiki administrators and several people who inserted defamatory material into it have faced long bans from wikipedia for inserting false or unsupportable material into it. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.30.63 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) David r from meth productions (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still don't see any evidence that H. has addressed the specific criticisms made in the article to which I linked. Let me stress this once more: that article was concerned with establishing that H.'s piece was marred by *factual errors*. Unless someone can refute that charge, then it stands. This is not a matter of "point of view" but of verifiable fact, which is what makes it eminently suitable for an encyclopedia article. Vague and obfuscatory references to articles of his that do not address these specific charges have *no bearing* on this question. Please show where H. has addressed the specific charges made in the article I linked to. (Incidentally, I hope you're not accusing me of "inserting false or unsupportable material" into the article! That is very far from being the case, I hope you'll agree: I gave chapter and verse.)Uthor (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, just to be absolutely clear, perhaps I should say why your paragraph on this subject is unsatisfactory. You claim that it is 'non-POV', but it is anything but that.  You insinuate that any criticisms leveled at his writings on this theme are due to preconceptions and bias on the part of 'Israeli pressure groups' and 'pro-Likud' thinkers.  I moved away from that and stuck to the facts, which are all that matters.  It may be that some of the criticisms that have been leveled at him by some sources are weak, but that doesn't make strong ones, such as those contained in the article I linked to, any less strong!Uthor (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hari's response to the Dishonest Reporting smears can be found: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/05/false-denunciat.html#more http://blogs.independent.co.uk/openhouse/2008/05/false-denunci-1.html#more

The quote they accuse of being "false" was repeatedly sourced by Hari to Ilan Pappe, a distinguished historian. There were no factual errors in his article: every journalist who fails to print a press release from the Israeli government is smeared by Honest Reporting as "inaccurate" etc. It would be absurd to go through every journalist who reports critically on Israel and insert Honest Reporting smears into their wikipedia entry.

You can also find at the end of the links above links to blogs and other articles which debunk Honest Reporting's claims. Check out the website Dishonest Reporting, which monitors them, showing the explicit dishonesty of their claims about Hari's articles.

You are however right that referring to Melanie Philips as 'pro-Likud' is unecessary and should be ditched. I don't think it's POV to refer to Honest Reporting as Israeli, but I'm prepared to compromise on that by ditching these monikers. I'm happy to duscuss if you think there should be any more changes; I'm keen to make sure this is balanced and fair. -DaveDavid r from meth productions (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I never once mentioned Honest Reporting! Here's the link to the article I cited, which points out and carefully documents H.'s factual errors:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=62&x_article=1497 Johann Hari's Mud-Slinging Let me also say this: who cares whether people on the other side of the debate criticize H.? It goes without saying that people broadly supportive of Israel will criticize a prominent critic of Israel. The same goes for any other controversial issue. If a journalist writing for a widely read newspaper is critical of Islamism, for example, then people who feel otherwise will criticize him. That just doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article, whether the criticism is found in a prominent media outlet or in some blog that hardly anyone knows about. What does deserve inclusion is material that has a direct bearing on the question whether H. is careful to get his facts right. And to decide that question, you need facts, which is why I linked to a well-documented article. Heated rhetoric, whether for or against H., is not relevant. I will concede one point. I referred to H.'s factual errors as 'serious factual errors'. I'm happy to omit that adjective and leave it to the reader to decide how serious his errors are.Uthor (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, i should have noticed it was CAMERA. Hari's response is clearly also to CAMERA. I'm keen to find a compromise here. What do you make of the version I have offered? David r from meth productions (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. You really, really don't want that link to the documentation of H.'s factual errors to appear on the page, do you?  I've explained why I think this belongs: perhaps it's time for you to explain why you are so keen to delete this carefully documented factual material?  It looks as though you never even followed the link, or you would have noticed that the article is dated June 15, i.e. a month after what you call 'Hari's response'.  Yet without reading the article you are confident enough to decide that a link to it has no place in Wikipedia!  Here's that link again.  It would be helpful if you could have a look at it before carrying out any further edits:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=62&x_article=1497 Uthor (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had already seen it, and I am well aware of CAMERA's appalling work. (The article is quite shocking. they actually claim that hari, who is Jewish, is "invoking the modern-day version of the medieval libel about Jews poisoning the wells". Obscene.) I have included the CAMERA link as you requested; I've really shown a spirit of compromise here.

This strikes me as quite possibly part of the concerted CAMERA wikipedia campaign to impose their perspective on wikipedia, which has led to many wiki editors being banned. Are you aligned with CAMERA in any way? Have you edited other entries to insert pro-CAMERA material? David r from meth productions (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you kindly withdraw this unpleasant accusation of parti pris: see WP:AGF if necessary. I just want to ensure that the reader has access to relevant information, and it has taken some time for you to allow the link.  Even now there are serious problems with this one paragraph alone (I haven't checked the rest).  Your link (at the end of the sentence beginning 'Hari has accused pro-Israel groups') contains nothing to support 'pointing out he is from a Jewish family, and arguing he has taken physical risks'.  Then you cite one obscure blogger writing in 2005 as evidence for the views of 'some pro-Palestinian writers', plural. I just don't find this notable enough for an encyclopedia entry.  It's certainly not enough to establish any tendency.  I think you need more evidence.  I have made changes accordingly (and deleted once more the tendentious 'pro-Israeli groups': see discussion above).Uthor (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate to call Hari "anti-Zionist." he is in favour of a two state solution, which obviously includes Israel. I have added an extra link about taking physical risks and having Jewish family. I'll do some more digging tomorrow about pro-Palestinian critics; I have seen this accusation in several places.

It is not tendentious to call these groups pro-Israel. they exist to attack critics of Israel. However I am prepared to comproomise on this if you will compromise on accepting the formulation of words I have proposed.

Given there has been a concerted and notorious campaign to insert CAMERA material into wikipedia, it';s not unfair to ask somebody who is inserting CAMERA sources into wikipedia if they are in any way linked to the organisation. I note you did not answer the question. if you assure me that you are not linked to this organisation or systematically inserting its material into wikipedia, of course I will assume good faith and take you at your word. I note you have not yet issued that denial. - DavidR - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.30.63 (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've claimed that you want a "neutral account" but your latest revision comes over as very one-sided, devoting considerably more space to H. than to his critics. Also I wonder whether you can back up your claim that his writings on Israel were 'a factor' in his winning the Orwell Prize: the official website [] states that it was awarded for 'five articles', none of them on this subject!  I am sorry that you are still unwilling to assume that I am acting in good faith.  I flatly refuse as a matter of principle to reveal any personal information.  To insist on my doing so goes against the spirit of this enterprise.  I hope you will concede this point, and that arguments should be judged on their merits, and not on the basis of their sources.Uthor (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm grateful to you for discussing this here so we can reach an agreement, rather than engaging in an edit war on the page itself, and for your non-aggressive and considered tone.

You have misunderstood the wikipedia rules if you think it is not necessary to say whether you are part of a concerted camapign to insert one particular campaign group's literature into wikipedia; this constitutes wiki:spam and is not in good faith. Your refusal to state you are not part of this campaign - which has led to five editors being banned from wikipedia - does, I'm afraid, make me suspicious.

I feel that only somebody with an irrational attachment to CAMERA would be unhappy that there is now a prominent part of the entry even saying Hari has committed "errors and anti-Semitism" - extremely strong charges which I would not have included, because they are demonstrably false, but have included as part of a compromise with you.

I have compromised considerably; I sincerely hope you will compromise too by accepting the current form of words, which is a hybrid of what you would prefer and what I would prefer, and that you will also disclose any involvement you may or may not have with the CAMERA campaign against wikipedia.David r from meth productions (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm. Great rhetoric, not so good on the facts.
 * I pointed out above that the Orwell Prize website did not support the claim you inserted.  As I said, 'it was awarded for 'five articles', none of them on this subject!'  You prefer just to leave this in.
 * Or how about that CAMERA article with its clear and carefully documented arguments that H.'s claims in one of his articles are based on factual errors. You take exception to the phrase, near the beginning, 'invoking the modern-day version of the medieval libel about Jews poisoning the wells', on the grounds that you find it 'shocking', and then proceed to ignore all the rest of the article, with its documentation of factual errors.  Yet now you go so far as to call the charges made 'demonstrably false'.  Well, if they're *demonstrably* false, that means that you can demonstrate that they are false: not just that you prefer not to engage with them, but that you can actually prove them wrong!  Please go ahead and do so.  Otherwise it looks like empty rhetoric!Uthor (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the Orwell Prize; my mistake, I've corrected it.

It is shocking that CAMERA accuses Hari, who has worked to expose neo-Nazis, of perpetuating the idea that Jews "poison the wells", when he was simply factually reporting the reality, and has taken real physical risks to oppose anti-Semitism, like working undercover against neo-Nazis.

You ask for demonstrably false CAMERA claims. Hari writes: "Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison. Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently..."

So he saw untreated sewage being pumped from an Israeli settlement. It is clear from this passage he saw it with his own eyes.

Yet CAMERA says: "the “stinking brown-and-yellow river of waste” he and Dr. Nadi observed is most probably stinking Palestinian waste, not Israeli waste."

Yet Hari says he saw it being pumped from an Israeli settlement himself. CAMERA's 'evidence' that this is wrong is to turn to the Friends of teh Earth report, and to quote it with extreme selectivity, Here in fact is what they plainly say about the Settlements: "The sewage of many Israeli settlements is not treated adequately, or even at all." Precisely what hari observed, and reported. (Feel free to read it at http://www.foeme.org/index_images/dinamicas/publications/publ29_1.pdf )

I'm afaraid if you refuse to accept the generous compromise I'm offering I will have no choice but to assume you are part of the widely-documented and appalling project to wiki-spam CAMERA sources into wikipedia, and appeal for administrators to intervene. I note that five CAMERA-spammers have already been permenantly banned from wikipedia for behaviour like this. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.30.63 (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remember that Wikipedia should contain only verifiable information!
 * I pointed out that you had inserted a false statement concerning the Orwell Prize, and suggested you remove it. You ignored this.
 * I then pointed it out a second time. You "corrected" it (your choice of words): by inserting another false claim!

You now claim that his Israel-related writing "was a factor in winning the Amnesty International 'Journalist of the Year' award in 2007". How extraordinary then that the man himself writes "In 2007 he was named Newspaper Journalist of the Year by Amnesty International for his reporting on the war in Congo." Do you know better than H.? Or are you just too lazy to check your claims? You are obviously not interested in engaging with the CAMERA report, and prefer to engage in smears (to use your own word). This article, you say, quotes the 2005 "Friends of the Earth" report "with extreme selectivity" and you go on to enlighten us as to what Friends of the Earth "in fact ... plainly say". And where did you find this quotation? Right there in the CAMERA article! Well, that shows once and for all how concerned you are to be fair to all sides, I guess! People who don't read the CAMERA article may be misled, but I would hope by now that anyone reading this page can see just how little you care about getting the facts straight!
 * Incidentally H. doesn't say in that article that 'he saw it [sewage] being pumped from an Israeli settlement himself'. He just implies it.  It is perfectly legitimate in the circumstances, when the Palestinians' own record at treating sewage is so bad (a fact he curiously neglects to mention, and which is documented in the CAMERA article you so despise) whether *they* may have been the culprits in this case.  And *even if they weren't*, no balanced report would neglect to mention their share of the blame.
 * Now please go right ahead and carry out your repeated threat to "appeal for administrators to intervene". Please.  I'm being totally serious.  I'll be truly interested to see how they view your sleight of hand with the facts and your bully-boy tactics, as documented on this very page.Uthor (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So Palestinians living under violent occupation have illegal settlements built on their land. From those illegal settlements, untreated sewage is pumped at the Palestinians. This is not in dispute by anyone, including Camera, who quote the Friends of the Earth saying this. Johann hari is to be condemned because his article didn't +also+ condemn internal problems within Palestine at the samr time. But he wasn't writing about the internal problems within Palestine. He has done that elsewhere, at some length, e.g. calling Arafat a "torturer" and "thug". He was writing about Israel's occupation, honestly, based on first hand experience. CAMERA condemns anybody who does this.

Is it "bullying" to point out that there has been a concerted campaign to spam CAMERA sources into wikipedia, and you have refused to even claim you are not part of this? On the contrary, I think doing so is a form of cyber-bullying, smearing critics of Israel with false accusations of anti-Semitism, which are especially absurd in Hari's case, given his own Jewishness and record of exposing anti-Semites.

My understanding about Amnesty is that the award was for his reporting on many subjects; this is how the Independent reported it at the time. However, if Hari says this is not so, I am perfectly prepared to believe him.

You have ignored my point about the demonstrable falseness of CAMERA's claims. CAMERA says: "the “stinking brown-and-yellow river of waste” he and Dr. Nadi observed is most probably stinking Palestinian waste, not Israeli waste." Yet Hari says plainly he saw it being pumped from an Israeli settlement himself (not implied it). I e-maield Hari to confirm this, and this is what he wroite: "Yes, of course, as the article says, I saw sewage being pumped directly from the settlements onto Palestinian land. There are loads of photos on the web of similar processes, only the most extreme nutcases deny this is happening, or that it is a serious crime for an occupying power to do this."

I have been trying hard to find a compromise here. I hope you will accept it. -DavidR


 * Hang on a second, this sure sounds like double standards to me! You criticized CAMERA on the grounds that they "quote it [the Friends of the Earth report] with extreme selectivity", leaving it to you to mention the most damning part (which you actually found staring you in the face right there in the CAMERA article!!).  But your hero Hari can be as selective as he likes, and can skew the evidence as much as he pleases!  In other words, he is above criticism, and it is mere impertinence on my part to suggest otherwise: impertinence, moreover, which could get me reported to Higher Authorities!  (Well, you seem to have decided that all your threats weren't such a good idea after all now that I challenged you to carry them out.)


 * As for the Amnesty award, I find it interesting that once again (as with the Orwell one) you're prepared to insert uncorroborated material (against Wikipedia rules) and then leave it there when evidence pointing to its being false is presented to you (again, against Wikipedia rules). But this is just another sign that your eagerness to give a fair and unbiased presentation of the facts is a total sham.  You just want to present H. in the best possible light, and discredit his critics by fair means or foul, as has been clear all along. Uthor (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not making "threats"; I am simply saying that since you won't even claim not to be part of it, if we can't find a reasonable compromise I'll obviously contact the wiki authorities to inform them you appear to be part of the wiki-spam campaign relating to CAMERA that has led to several people being blocked. I would rather make a compromise with you.

Do you now concede that Hari's article plainly says he saw untreated sewage being pumped from the Settlements, in direct contradiction to the false claim by CAMERA that "the “stinking brown-and-yellow river of waste” he and Dr. Nadi observed is most probably stinking Palestinian waste, not Israeli waste"?

You wanted to insert into the statement that Hari made "serious factual errors" in his article, but it's revealing that now you have been reduced to complaining that he didn't include other "facts" that you think should have been there in the name of "balance." They are very different charges. Not every article a journalist writes has to condemn everything in the world. You can condemn Israeli pumping of untreated sewage onto the land they are violently occupying without condemning, in that same 1000-word article, the Janjaweed in Sudan, or Rober Mugabe, or the Saudi monarchy, or the corruption within the Palestinian Authority (especially since Hari has condemned these at length elsewhere.) Hari's article was factually accurate, and simply by looking at the first two paragraphs of the CAMERA report, we can see that they are not.

Despite this, I am prepared to compromise on this by including a link to and menion of the CAMERA charges, provided we have a pproportionate description of Hari's reponse. This seems to me to be a generous compromise, espcially given your failure to refuse to be part of a well-documented camapign that is contrary to wiki-rules and has led to multiple bannings. I hope you will accpt it.- DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.30.63 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read through this discussion and I'm not sure I'm getting it right. Uthor, you want to include an accusation carried in one extremely biased source in a biography of a living person?  Its commendable that DavidR has tried to work with you and come up with a compromise, but there's actually no need for him to do so -- what you're asking for is clearly against policy (see WP:BLP) and has no place in this article.  If *multiple reputable* sources make similar claims, then we can consider putting it in the article;accusations by one biased and attention seeking source don't meet those requirements. Shell   babelfish 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

14 June 2010: Reference is made to the most recent attempt to bring to light Hari's very public disagreement with HonestReporting and CAMERA. Hari has levelled criticism against both of these organisations, which makes this matter no different to public disagreements with George Galloway, et al. Please note DavidR's comments above (28/6/2008) regarding a proposed compromise to include a link and mention of CAMERA's charges, provided that a proportionate description of Hari's response is provided. The presently drafted section provides a substantially larger response from Hari, which should address anyone's concerns regarding any potential bias. User_talk:joshgladwinJoshgladwin (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure about including this spat between Hari and Honestreporting and CAMERA - we should really use secondary sources that talk about their dispute, not primary sources that are the dispute. However, Andrew Sullivan offered some commentary on the dispute in February, also Melanie Phillips and Howard Jacobson, in 2008, so perhaps this dispute should be included? But we need to find some independent secondary analysis of it; all these people are involved in this dispute! Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Until this dispute is resolved, and the conditions Fences and Windows suggest are met, it should remain off the page. An admin has ruled above that we should not be using an "extremely biased source in a biography of a living person", so I'm reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.25.120 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, I note that ONLY primary sources are used to document Hari's public disagreements with George Galloway, Niall Ferguson, the Chapman Brothers, Mark Steyn and Nick Cohen. There is no independent secondary analysis in relation to any of these individuals. It is therefore unreasonable to demand reliance on secondary sources in respect of HonestReporting and CAMERA. This is clearly a contentious issue, which must be documented.Joshgladwin (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to put the charges against Hari, you have to put his response to each of the charges made. That makes for a pretty long entry, but I think it's necessary: you can't put that he was accused of using a false quote, and not say that he replied by giving a reputable source for the quote, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.34 (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also concerned that this may be a factor here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8784

These are such extremely biased sources, with such an extreme agenda, that I feel BLP rules should be strictly adhered to. I'm offering a compromise of their chargesd ion full and Hari's reponse in full, but I feel queasy about it. Logically we would have to go through every prominent journalist who has ever defended the Palestinians from human rights abuses and insert the Honest reporting smears against them. That seems to give pretty unfair prominence to an extremely biased organization. It seems ironic to incude Andrew Sullivan's reference to the article, since he quoted it simply to agree that these were baseless and vile smears against Hari.82.132.139.34 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its a good start. I query why you have attributed such an extreme level of bias against HonestReporting and CAMERA while supporting your argument using a blog by a Canadian website, GlobalResearch.ca. I have difficulty in accepting your argument when a mere cursory view of the Globalresearch website (under the tab entitled “Middle East”) reveals that the vast majority (if not all) of the articles appear very much biased against Israel. I also question your insistence on attributing Jewish lineage to Hari when none is evident in the article you have cited. It is not fair to suggest that Hari’s views carry more weight if he is seen as Jewish124.190.27.56 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The phenomenon described in that story, of an attempt to insert an extreme and false narrative into wikipedia, has been very widely reported.

Inserting the very biased and extreme HonestReporting and CAMERA allegations seems to me to breach BLP guidelines. These organisations exist to smear any journalist who deviates from a very extreme pro-settler position. The 'controversy' you are inserting has not attracted widespread comment; the fact that you had to cite Andrew Sullivan as your best evidence, when he was agreeing it was an appalling and baseless smear against Hari, shows how few further sources have taken it seriously.

On a separate point, if somebody is accused of anti-Semitism, the fact they are from a Jewish family is obviously relevant, and makes the accusation seem even more ludicrous. I have pasted the source below. I strongly beieve this section should be deleted because it breaches wiki rules, as the admins recommended above.82.132.136.205 (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated edit-warring on Independent newspaper article
This reference - - has been repeatedly removed. This was written by the BLP subject themselves and is published in a well known national newspaper. Repeated deletions of such valid references appear to be blatant edit-warring. If the text that surrounds them can be considered "outrageous and libellous distortion of Hari's views" as per the edit comment given in this latest deletion, then the offending commenting text should be removed but not the valid reliable source. Fæ (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True enough, but is the source still being used if it isn't supporting the removed text? If not, then I'm not sure in what context it should remain. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't suitable to include at all. Including this comment out of all the hundreds that Hari has written is cherry-picking, violating our WP:NPOV policy. This column has not received comment in reliable sources, so including it gives this article undue weight. Including the view of someone on a blog about Hari is not acceptable either. Removing this was not vandalism. We have to be extremely careful about how we handle biographies, so please stop trying to include this, it looks like POV pushing. Fences  &  Windows  13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the question of other reliable sources commenting on Hari's article in order to show it is not undue weight or NPOV to mention it, I have the following cross-reference that may be helpful:
 * The Evening Standard (London), January 22, 2003, The week The Observer chose war, Andrew Neil

SOMETHING has been bothering me about The Independent's coverage of the paedophilia scandals. The paper seems to have decided that it is far too clever and aloof to be shocked by the issue. A number of columns - among them the usually admirable Deborah Orr - have been infected by a kind of knowing libertarianism about paedophilia that tries to be quirky and ends up striking a false tone.

And it's a poor debut for the paper's new columnist Johann Hari, a young man who puts the je in jejune and a thoroughly inadequate replacement for the very readable David Aaronovitch.

Under the headline "Remember paedophiles are people too", Hari argues that it is all the fault of the rest of us for driving paedophiles underground - and ventures that the problem could be alleviated by television adverts asking paedophiles to call in for help if they feel sexually attracted to kids.

This is callow stuff and no ornament to The Independent.


 * The Sun, January 17, 2003, PAEDOPHOBE, Richard Littlejohn

HOW long will it be before the word "paedophobe" enters the language as a term of abuse for anyone who dares express disrespectful thoughts about child molesters?

That was the question I asked in this column on January 3.

This week, The Independent -The Guardian without the jobs adverts -carried a long piece by Johann Hari, headlined: "Remember: Paedophiles are people, too."

We have to accept, he argued, that "paedophilia is an intractable sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homo-sexuality, that cannot be 'trained out' of a person".

Horrible Right-wingers must realise that paedophiles are victims, too. We must understand, not condemn.

He didn't actually use the word "paedophobe", but only because he hasn't thought of it yet.

As I have been warned for mistakenly reverting what I thought was vandalism, I shall not be contributing to the article itself. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent, we may be able to work these in. Fences  &  Windows  15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Although... the Pink News column is not about Hari's views on paedophiles, and Richard Littlejohn is not a neutral commentator on Hari. Fences  &  Windows  15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, take your point on the Pink News item. There was also a letter in the Independent in follow-up to Hari's article. Considering who the author was, this may be a supporting critical source:


 * —Fæ (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure those sources are really enough, to be honest - The Evening Standard's piece only amounts to a sentence, Littlejohn, as mentioned, is biased, and a single letter to the editor that corrects some factual points and supports his conclusion isn't really a lot to support the importance of the article. At any rate, the current wording that was inserted really did seem to misrepresent what he was saying, and seemed to suffer from synth, so it probably needs a complete rewrite before it can be included anyway. - Bilby (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a grotesque distortion of what hari wrote, to such a degree that it's hard to see this as motivated by anything otehr than malice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.25.120 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This thread is about the repeated removal of a reliable source. I am not against the copy-editing of non-neutral text and the prose itself has nothing to do with me. Here are the two sources you have chosen to delete from the article:
 * Perhaps you could suggest some compromise in how these can be presented without being considered "a grotesque distortion" of the articles themselves? Fæ (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest some compromise in how these can be presented without being considered "a grotesque distortion" of the articles themselves? Fæ (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could suggest some compromise in how these can be presented without being considered "a grotesque distortion" of the articles themselves? Fæ (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up my objections to the 'paedophile' material and my objections to the Israel material. The grotesque distortion was in the paedophile stuff.

The commenter above has clearly failed to come up with three substantial independent sources who discuss what Hari wrote, the requirement for meeting NOTE criteria. He has two: the third, from Pink News, doesn't even mention it at all. So it clearly fails the Wiki rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.34 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot see where the guidance of WP:NOTE mention anything about needing a minimum of three substantial independent sources. Could you supply a link? Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, scroll further up to the section that begins 'I believe the disputes Hari has had are interesting and pass NOTE criteria'. Clearly, a passing reference from Richard Littlejohn and a few lines in the Evening Standard do not meet the criteria for NOTE by any standard, especially not for the garbled and false summary of Hari's views that were inserted into this entry. 82.132.139.83 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
The part about Hari's view on paedophiles was reintroduced after this was included: "Hari has been critical of some writers like Alan Bennett and Stephen Fry whose work he believes implies that the victims of sexual abuse enjoy it. He says this risks eroding the "taboos protecting young people from sexual abuse"." That's a comment based on a primary source, Hari's HuffPost blog, and in my opinion we should remove it. We cannot include every column and every opinion Hari ever had: if we rely on our own choice of topics we're cherry picking, conducting original research, and potentially giving undue weight to topics based on our own preferences. I think there is far too much use of such sources in this article and this needs reducing greatly. We need to rely on secondary reliable sources about Hari, his views, controversies and disagreements. See Biographies of living persons for more. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The UNDUE argument is a subtle one. Personally I would try to avoid over-reliance on the Huffington Post when Hari has plenty of articles in physical print. However SELFPUB also applies, consequently it is not strictly true that evidence of Hari's opinions have to rely on secondary sources. If Hari has posted extreme opinions then I agree that, in this case, if they are significant then there should be evidence of some impact, and if such evidence is lacking then devoting a section to the issue does seem to fail UNDUE. Purging the article of any mention of such an extreme opinion seems to swing too far the other way, as though a whole section may fail UNDUE, there seems little wrong in a one-line mention of this particular adequately sourced self-published opinion as yet another example of his extreme opinions. Fæ (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I seem to recall the article was in the Independent. I'm pretty sure Huffington Post simply buy his columns from there and rerun them. I agree though that it's not one of his more noteworthy opinions and I too would be perfectly happy to see it removed. Much better that than inserting a grotesque distortion of his views into a postscript to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.34 (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you also against my suggestion of a neutral one-line mention within the guidance of SELFPUB? Fæ (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how it meets NOTE criteria., it doesn't seem to have been discussed anywhere else. But I don't feel strongly aboput that, I just want to make sure the disgusting misrepresentation of his views that was attempted before doesn't proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.34 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was that SELFPUB tells us that if we want sources to explain the views and opinions of a BLP subject, then their own articles can be quoted for this purpose. It looks as though you are in agreement as quoting Hari's own text could hardly be considered a "disgusting misrepresentation". Fæ (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What the user was trying to insert was a single out-of-context line, explicitly framed as contradicting his current position, followed by a false summary of Hari's view. It was obviously POV and obviously fails NOTE. It was so distorted it's very hard to believe it's motivated by anything other than malice.82.132.139.83 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish family, verification needed
In this edit the text "Hari, who has Jewish family" has been re-added. After searching for a statement for this in the Independent article, I do not believe this is supported by the source. Could someone else please verify or remove the text? Fæ (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out the last few paragraphs of that article, he talks about his Jewish nephews. 82.132.139.83 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Either I have a blind-spot for the words in question or I don't think we can be talking about the same source. I am looking at the article "Johann Hari: The loathsome smearing of Israel's critics" which is the footnoted citation next to the text in question. I have just re-read the last 6 paragraphs and searched the rest of the page of that citation. There is no mention of "nephew", "sister" or "uncle". Could you please give an exact reference or cut & paste the sentence in question? Fæ (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same version of the article? http://www.johannhari.com/2008/05/07/this-smearing-of-israel-s-critics-must-stop It's very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.205 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just realized I included the Independent link, not that link, to same but alightly expanded article. My apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.205 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Using quote marks in section title
In this edit the subtitle has been changed to put quote marks around "Pro-Israel". This would imply that the organizations in question are "so-called" Pro-Israel and implies some doubt about the matter. The associated articles HonestReporting and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America make it clear that they are Pro-Israel. As the matter is not in doubt and the section itself does not discuss any doubt about the Pro-Israel nature of these organizations, the quote marks should be removed or the section title re-phrased. Fæ (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hari does dispute they are pro-Israel, as the reference now says. He says they are urging Israel on a path that will cause disaster. It also imp[lies Hari is 'anti-Israel' to put him in conflict with 'pro-Israel' groups, where Hari says he is advocating a course that will make Israel much safer and happier. So I strongly think the quote marks should stay82.132.139.211 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be to simply call them HonestReporting and CAMERA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.83 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you the same anonymous editor who made the last comment? Using a rotating IP address in the same thread is confusing and makes one person appear to be several editors.
 * I have no issue with the words being removed altogether, with the current wording the title itself appears to be non-neutral. Fæ (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about tht, I'll create a new login, I can't remember my password for my old one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.205 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel section blanking
this edit (probably from the same person with a rotating IP address) has blanked the Israel/Palestine section yet again. The edit comment says "see discussion". Where is the consensus to blank this section that I am supposed to be able to find? Fæ (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I blanked it. I don't know what a "rotating IP{ address" is, I made most of the edits above from my laptop by logging on, as I say I haven't used my login for a while so I forgot the password but have now retrieved it. I'm grateful to you for your agreement on the paedophile issue and hope we can reach a consensus on the Israel stuff too.

The BLP rules are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ALP

These are parts I think are relevant to this situation:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources... Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively... The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material... Look out for biased or malicious content."

I blanked that passage specifically because of these rules: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP... Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

HonestReporting and CAMERA are self-publishing interest groups. They fall at this hurdle, even if you set aside the NOTE questions: this controversy has not been discussed by an uninvolved party, except for Andrew Sullivan, who said it was a sham and a smear, hardly grounds for inclusion.

It's also worth bearing in mind that an admin has already ruled above that HonestReporting is "an extremely biased source" and unsuitable for BLP. Since the BLP rules stress that if you have doubts about BLP rules being breached you should remove it immediately, rather than wait for a consensus to do so, I blanked the section. I'm keen to hear your thoughts. Perhaps a good compromise would be to insert a few sentences about his reporting on Israel/Palestine into the section abut his international work? David r from meth productions (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please re-read the text you have quoted from BLP above. It specifically discusses the valid inclusion of articles written by the subject when writing about their own opinions or themselves (see SELFPUB). Hari has written about his own opinions and makes reference or is referred to from other articles that can be used as references. Yes CAMERA and HonestReporting are interested groups but it is fallacious to remove all reference to them when Hari is writing about them himself and part of demonstrating impact (per N). You appear to misunderstand the phrase "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" in BLP, the material is not contentious as the section explained Hari's views which are not disputed and the section was not poorly sourced as it had several sources including citations from The Independent written by Hari.
 * At a minimum you should replace the following references (which are not self-published, they are published by The Independent):
 * Fæ (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fæ (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fæ (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for more neutral version
I suggest the following much shorter and more neutral version replaces the original text. A version with the actual footnotes displayed can be seen at User:Fæ/Sandbox. If you wish to amend, I suggest working on the sandbox version.


 * With CAMERA and HonestReporting

The organizations HonestReporting and Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America have criticized Hari for his reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.$[1]$$[2]$$[3]$$[4]$

Hari disputes these claims and says they are part of a "campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people."$[5]$ Hari points out the quote they claim as false is from Professor Ilan Pappé's book 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine', and that the individuals these organizations praise for their coverage of Israel include Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips.$[5]$

Hari has been defended on this issue by several commentators, including Andrew Sullivan, who said that the "fundamental desire [of these groups] is not to engage in debate about Israel and Palestine, but to control the debate with smears and character assassinations."$[6]$

—Fæ (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As there has been a day and half of WP:SILENCE, I shall add this version to the article. Fæ (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, we have inserted into a BLP entry a claim for which the only wiki-standard source is by a writer who says it says it is a disgusting smear and not worth discussing.

I fear that's not a sufficiently reliable source to meet the high standards expected of a BLP entry.

I've slightly altered the version that was there and I'll give you time to come back and give a response before removing it again. But as it currently stands, this pretty clearly fails to meet BLP criteria. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.205.13 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You appear to be arbitrarily removing sourced material. As a further gesture of good will, I shall leave your changes and ask for a third opinion on 3O as it appears to me that you do not seem to be able to take on board the distinction between contentious sources versus well sourced controversial content, or the distinction I have explained between the general BLP guidance (which this text meets) and the specific guidance of SELFPUB (which this text also meets). Your repeated blanking makes it hard for me to continue to assume good faith. Fæ (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The dispute is the entire section, removed and replaced more than once. The proposal above was an attempt to present a neutral version, in the attempt to make it uncontroversial the proposed text has not repeated any accusations made against Hari, just linked to the articles and only quoted examples of his published responses. In the most recent reply DavidR has said his deletions were made "before removing it again", so the issue is still an objection to the section existing at all. Fæ (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My objection is, at its core, that no reliable sources discuss this controversy, except to say it is a sham with no credibility and beneath discussion.

The BLP rules stipulate: Never use self-published sources. This controversy stems exclusively from a self-published source, and then two reliable sources saying what they say is ridiculous and shouldn't be discussed. That doesn't, to me, seem to meet the high bar demanded of BLP entries: that "we must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources... Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively."

Fae has claimed I'm objecting to the fact it's controversial. I'm not. I'm objecting to the fact it is a self-published source not discussed anywhere else by anyone who takes it even vaguely seriously.

I don't think it meets the criteria, although I am of course happy to discuss it, and glad Fae has removed some of the most contentious material. I've also recovered my password so can sign in!David r from meth productions (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As explained above more than once, you are incorrect. BLP does not say "never". The section involved refers to SELFPUB.Fæ (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fae, the BLP rules say:

"Avoid self-published sources

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ALP#Avoid_self-published_sources

Honest Reporting and CAMERA are self-pubished. The rules say to "never use self-published sources." Can you explain the mistake you think I'm making? I don't understand your argument. I'm open to persuasion but simply saying "BLP does not say "never". The section involved refers to SELFPUB" doesn't seem to make sense to me. David r from meth productions (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that Fae's wording from the 17th is neutral and sourced OK. The outside commentary, especially Sullivan's, helps the section. I am not sure if Honest Reporting and CAMERA are "self published" as such; they may have a reputation for bias, but they do have fact checking and aren't just one guy with a blog. My earlier comments may have muddied the waters. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A Blog from Joe the plumber is a Self Published source, These are Watch dog groups who typically are "biased" but keep it in the lines enough so they don't get sued for defamation thus generally are "ok" sources but not "Great." Hari reconized the issue with a rebuttal and had people like Sullivan defending. So i am inclined to think that this neutral in the article. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of balance of "With CAMERA and HonestReporting"
After lengthy discussion above, I recreated this section in as neutral a form as possible by removing all surplus controversial quotations. The recent addition of two quotes from Johann Hari in this section means there are a total of three quotes from Hari supporting his viewpoint, where he effectively cherry-picks quotes from others, and one further quote from a writer who supports his viewpoint. As the section is within "Public disagreements" the section now seems overly biased to one side of the disagreement. In order to comply with WP:NPOV, either these recently added quotes can be removed again to neutralize the text, or quotes from CAMERA and HonestReporting can be added to give the section a sense of balance. Fæ (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless someone has a clear objection or proposes alternative text that addresses the NPOV issue, I shall revert this text to the previous neutral version on the basis of WP:SILENCE. Fæ (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have a very strong objection to it. You have not been able to produce anybody who regards this as a legitimate controversy who was not directly involved in it; the only external source you have been able to find discussing it is one saying it is a smear and beneath contempt. You may regard them as "cherry-picked" quotes but that is clearly POV. You are trying to insert into a BLP entry the claim that somebody is anti-Semitic, yet you have no reliable sources whatsoever.

If you are going to put the charge against Hari, it is essential to put his response. (I am uncomfortable with inclouding it at all, but in the interests of compromise I will settle for that, provided there is a decent response space.)

The quote from Sullivan was provided by you: it is the only external source not involved in the row who ever discused it. therefore it is essential to include it.

I am offering a compromise of including this material in the entry, but to do so without putting at least some of the details of Hari's response would be appalling.David r from meth productions (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please try to avoid defaulting to ad hominem attacks. If you check the page history, I have added nothing to this article that was not there before my first edit, only attempted to provide a neutral version of this section. Due to your repeated complaints and section blanking there has been a perfectly good dispute resolution process that makes it clear that the previous version was considered neutral. There was more than sufficient response from Hari in the previous version which included exactly the same citations and quotations but did not have these additional full quotes from Hari's article which quote (or possibly paraphrase) other writers in a negative fashion and are themselves not independently or reliably sourced.
 * To repeat the same suggestion above which you appear not to have understood, I am proposing to revert to the exact same previous version, I am not suggesting that the citations are changed, I am not suggesting that the Sullivan citation is removed, I am not suggesting that the quote from Sullivan is removed, I am not suggesting that the citations from Hari are removed and I am not suggesting that previous quotations from Hari are removed.
 * If you are going to insist on supplementary quotes from the citations to Hari's articles, then it seems transparently obvious that balancing quotations from the citations of the opposing view should be included in order to address the NPOV requirement. I am proposing a choice between these alternatives:
 * revert to the previous version which tends to support Hari's viewpoint by including no quotes whatsoever from the opposing view but some limited quotes from Hari or,
 * keep the quotes you have added but have at least some quotations from the opposing view to give proportionate balance.
 * If you prefer to argue against the outcome of the dispute resolution process, then to avoid leaving the article as a blatant NPOV failure, I shall revert the article to the previous neutral version whilst you start another dispute resolution process where you can put the same case yet again. Fæ (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why your tone is so hostile and aggressive.

You haven't been able to produce any external source not involved in this controversy who regards it as worthy of discussion, apart from Andrew Sullivan, who says it is a disgusting smear and beneath contempt. In light of these facts, and the very high standards required of BLP, I do not believe it should be included in this entry. As I explained above, I am however willing to try to find a compromise. I believe that compromise has to include Hari's own words. The Independent newspaper is a reliable source for those quotes by any standard. I strongly believe they should be included.

I would appreciate it if you could engage with me in the spirit of compromise, rather than with an aggressive and dismissive tone.86.175.28.51 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are the same editor as earlier in this thread, please write from the same account to avoid confusion. Please refer to the WP:SOCK guidelines. Fæ (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is three days since I proposed to restore the neutral version (as supported by the 3O process above). Apart from the unsupported argument from David r from meth productions that the previous version was not neutral, there has been no rationale to keep the additional quotes that distort the balance of this section (refer to WP:QUOTE). I shall restore to the neutral version as proposed. Fæ (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for With the Chapman Brothers section
This subsection of Public disagreements includes two references, the first to Hari's Independent opinion piece article of 5 February 2007 and the second to Hari's personal website dated 5 February 2007 where Hari quotes from an unpublished letter he received from Jake Chapman. I propose that if no sources can be provided apart from Hari's own publications, then this section is removed to follow NPOV and SELFPUB, the latter on the basis that referring to Hari's publications for an entire sub-section on disagreements (which by definition must involve two or more parties) seems overly self-serving. Fæ (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that the lack of external sources leads you to want to delete the section on the Chapman Brothers, yet led you to want to retain the section on HonestReporting. Here's a source that isn't related to Hari for the Chapmans controversy:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-prisons-at-crisis-point-435310.html

Could you please answer the points I made above, which you have persistently refused to address:

You haven't been able to produce any external source not involved in this controversy who regards it as worthy of discussion, apart from Andrew Sullivan, who says it is a disgusting smear and beneath contempt. In light of these facts, and the very high standards required of BLP, I do not believe it should be included in this entry. As I explained above, I am however willing to try to find a compromise. I believe that compromise has to include Hari's own words. The Independent newspaper is a reliable source for those quotes by any standard. I strongly believe they should be included.

You can't have it both ways. If the lack of external sources is a reason to delete the Chapmans section - remember: you found +no+ uninvolved sources, except for one dismissing it as a baseless smear - then you should delete the HonestReporting section too.

Please answer the points above and enter into the spirit of compromise, as I have tried to.

I am in favour of deleting both, or neither. David r from meth productions (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Independent letter is the same as the one quoted on Hari's blog and I suggest it replaces that source.
 * As for your off topic statements about what I have or have not done, these are speculative ad hominem arguments which are either poorly judged tendentious argument or intended to be offensive. Please desist. Refer to the third opinions given above which I have no intention of pointlessly repeating. Fæ (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly accused me of being a sock-puppet or of trying to pretend to be something I'm not, yet when I ask you polite questions, you accuse me of being "offensive"? I find that bizarre. All I've ever asked you to do, politely, is to answer the following point:

You haven't been able to produce any external source not involved in this controversy who regards it as worthy of discussion, apart from Andrew Sullivan, who says it is a disgusting smear and beneath contempt. In light of these facts, and the very high standards required of BLP, I do not believe it should be included in this entry.

I have offered repeated compromises; you haven't yet offered a single one.David r from meth productions (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Please point out where I have "repeatedly accused" you of being a sock-puppet? As far as I am aware I have pointed out the policy to you more than once, as you have contributed from different anonymous IP address in this article and talk page as well as from your named account. This confuses discussion threads and makes it impossible to check the page history to compare your previous edits. Your apparent failure to either understand or comply with the WP:SOCK guidance is not necessarily the same thing as being a sock puppet. Considering your contribution history over the last 4 years (when not editing anonymously), it is evident that the majority of your edits on Wikipedia have been devoted to this article; you may find the guidance of WP:SPA and WP:COI helpful.
 * 2. As you are forcing me to do so, here is a copy and paste of the point made by Fences and windows above: I am not sure if Honest Reporting and CAMERA are "self published" as such; they may have a reputation for bias, but they do have fact checking and aren't just one guy with a blog. Your assertion that sources "not involved in this controversy" are required is incorrect, as long as sources meet RS, this is sufficient.
 * 3. Having gone through the process of proposal and consensus for the neutral version of the text I added, I fail to see how your complaints about me carry any weight. If you still feel I am wrong I suggest you follow a recognized dispute resolution process rather than filling this talk page with accusations about me, as you appear to be lobbying and making the issue personal rather than about the article.
 * 4. I consider the original point of this thread closed as I have replaced the citation to Hari's personal blog with the citation to the Independent that you included above. It should be noted that the original text of the section misquoted Chapman and exaggerated the tone of his letter to the Independent, I have corrected the text. Fæ (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal by David R
Hari disputes these claims and says they are part of a "campaign to smear anybody who tries to describe the plight of the Palestinian people." Hari points out the quote they claim as false is from Professor Ilan Pappé's book 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine', and that the individuals these organizations praise for their coverage of Israel include Alan Dershowitz and Melanie Phillips, who he quotes as holding extreme anti-Palestinian viewsviews. Put here byWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why was this proposal posted by a second party, has it been discussed elsewhere and copied here? Fæ (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * i reverted an edit becuase the tone of the edit summary sounded like some one pulling a Fast one. So here is I make no judgement other than this paragraphs has been disputed recently and it seemed more proper than slipping it in. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.
 * As there is no context for HonestReporting or Camera and no summary of their criticism, it would seem odd to keep extending the detail of explanation of Hari's replies to that (unreported) criticism. Further clarification or paraphrasing of Hari's opinions of Dershowitz and Phillips are actually tangential to the dispute that is the topic of the sub-section. After lengthy debate about this controversial topic, there was consensus for a neutral version created, by me, by taking out all detail about the criticism of Hari, this continued apparent lobbying to extend Hari's side of the dispute and not the other side undermines that consensus. As no new enlightening sources have been proposed and this is not a proposal to significantly improve the summary of dispute itself, I am against changing this text. Fæ (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the most important point is that we are currently including in a BLP entry very seriously claims which are from a self-published source, and for which Fae has been able to produce no external sources, except for one saying it is a baseless and ugly smear! For that reason, I think the weight of the entry needs to be away from the smears which are self-published and for which Fae has no external sources, and towards Hari, who is indeed supported by the only external non-self-published source Fae can produce. For this reason, i think we should reflect a little more of his response. I offered the above as a compromise. What do yuo propose as an alternative compromise, in order to reflect that Hari argues they praise people with extreme anti-Palestinian views as objective?David r from meth productions (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not take every thread off-topic with the same repeated argument. Refer to my answer in . I suggest anyone else who wishes to comment on this point do so on that discussion thread. Fæ (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Hari's personal blog
The guidance of WP:SELFPUB applies to use of http://johannhari.com. I have reverted a recent removal of citation needed tags partially due to the fact that the source fails this guidance on the grounds that claims by Hari on his blog that he was "Youngest person ever to be short-listed for Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards" fail SELFPUB criteria 1 (self-serving), criteria 2 (involves third parties) and possibly criteria 5 (as the statement would be based solely on the blog). The blog may be useful for his personal opinions and personal biographic detail but should not be used as a sole source for information involving others. Fæ (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are saying Hari's own website isn't a reliable source for information about where he grew up and what his parents did and awards he has won? (You removed that link, despite requesting it.) If you wish to revert the award citation, although I disagree, do so - don't reverty all the citations I put ion to personal information that you clearly accept Hari is a reasonable source for.


 * Can you explain to me, politely please, how Hari's website is self-published, but Honest Reporting's isn't? I genuinely don't understand your logic.


 * I'm finding the hostility of your tone and your constant attacks on my good faith edits quite upsetting. Please read the rules urging people to assume good faith of other editors.


 * I think we should get other admins involved at this point because I fear, despite repeated offers of compromise from me, we're not going to agree. You should stop reverting and start appealing for a wider circle of admins, because I fear your attitude is becoming hostile - you have already accused Hari of "cherry-picking" quotes about Israel etc in a way that suggests real hostility. David r from meth productions (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do, you seem incapable or unwilling to understand me and I would welcome an admin to review the history of this article and this talk page. I look forward to the result of any DR process you wish to apply.
 * Repeating the same explanation several times about standard Wikipedia guidance that you appear to be unable to read for yourself is incredibly boring and terrible waste of my time. I make it completely clear in my above statement that Hari's blog is a possible source for biographic detail but not for information that involves other parties. I reverted your edit (as I took care to explain at the time in the edit summary and on your talk page) because you have repeatedly removed maintenance tags without resolving the issue, there is no requirement for me to unpick the good parts of your contributions from the bad in such a situation. The guidance of WP:BURDEN applies to you as well as everyone else. As you have tacitly accepted the point of my revision by adding a new reference of http://www.johannhari.com/2004/03/page/2, thereby acknowledging you were guilty, yet again, of removing explicitly explained cn tags without addressing them, I would welcome the support of an admin to spell out the standard guidance to you so that I don't have to.
 * At this stage your apparent long term lobbying for the removal of any mention of Honest Reporting / Camera in this article (as shown by the fact that you have raised the matter in every discussion thread on this talk page since the third opinion was given) appears to contravene the Tendentious editing guidelines. Your behavior has become an issue for any future contributor who may wish to improve the article or, like myself, simply address any NPOV issues. Fæ (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Third opinion: I'm not an admin, but I can give a third opinion on this. WP:SELFPUB says that you can use his blog for personal information as long as it's not overly self serving, and I think these edits have gone into that territory a bit. This isn't meant to be some fansite where Hari is extolled for his achievements. Now having said that, I think it's okay to use his site to say that he's lived in London since he was one, and that he attended Woodhouse College. I've cleaned up the references to point to the actual places where that was stated. As to the Young Journalist one, I think the BBC reference provided is okay for that. Maybe I've misunderstood the issues here, and if I did, I'm sorry and would be willing to either revise my statements, or give further guidance. Now what's all this about CAMERA and HonestReporting? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be confusing the award "Student Journalist of the Year" or "Young Journalist of the Year" with claim in the awards section that he is the "Youngest person ever to be shortlisted for Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards"; these are two different awards/bullet points being mentioned and there is no BBC reference for the latter claim only Hari's blog. As the claim compares him with all previous winners of Journalist of the Year BPA award, using his blog as the single source that makes this claim (the other citations demonstrate he won the award but not that he is the youngest ever winner) is insufficient.
 * As for the CAMERA and Honest Reporting, these are discussed in, , and . The original third opinion in the first section on this list clarified the neutrality of the proposed text, that David r from meth productions has continued to apparently lobby against any mention of this dispute rather than use a DR process, repeatedly remove maintenance tags without addressing the issues and take discussion threads off-topic as part of the same apparent lobbying falls under the TE guidance. Fæ (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what any of these phrases mean - what's a DR process? What's TE guidance? I can't really respond to charges I don't understand... I'm only an occassional contributor to wikipedia but my understanding is that the rules say new editors should be welcomed, not hit with a blizzard of acronyms and accusations of bad faith David r from meth productions (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I see. You're talking about "Youngest person ever to be shortlisted for Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards 2010. He was also shortlisted for Feature Writer of the Year". Yes, in that case, the youngest person claim does not belong. The second sentence there, though, is okay. Let me read the text about the CAMERA thing and I'll get back to you. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi HelloAnnyong - thanks for casting a fresh eye over this.

In the interests of finding a compromise, I have emailed Johann hari asking if he knows of any other sources for the claims Fae keeps questioning. Hopefully he will know some and this can be easily resolved.

Just on one point though: Hari's website says "He was born in Glasgow but has lived in London since he was a year old. His father was a bus driver, while his mother worked in a shelter for victims of domestic violence."

Fae has removed these words. Do you think Hari's website is sufficient evidence to restore these claims? You seem to be saying this above but I wanted to check before I restored it. 

The discussion about HonestReporting is currently focusing on a few questions.

(1) Do they meet BLP criteria? They are a group that criticises huge numbers of journalists who do not take their very hardline pro-Settler position with very harsh language, calling them anti-Semitic etc. Given this, I asked Fae if she could produce any reliable sources not involved who regard this as a controversy. The only one she could find was Andrew Sullivan - who calls it a disgraceful smear and says Hari is a victim of their ugly charges. I feel this reinforces my case, not hers.

(2) Are they self-published? They are a self-appointed group who only appear online and do not appear to have any fact-checking or correction mechanism. Fae believes they are not self-published, although she is not prepared to enter into any dialogue about why, despite repeated requests.

(3) If we do compromise and keep this section, despite my grave concerns, can we include, in the summary of Hari's response,

(a) the quotes from melanie Phillips and Alan Dershowitz that Hari says are proof of anti-Palestinianism, or

(b) at the very least, the statement that "Hari says they have made extreme anti-Palestinian statements"? Fae has repeatedly removed both these attempts at compromise.

I entirely agree with you that this entry is not supposed to be a fan site - if you check the archive I have inserted some critical claims into this entry that were later removed by otehr editors.

Thanks again, DavidDavid r from meth productions (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not misrepresent me or omit key facts in order to exaggerate your case.
 * The opinions expressed by Fences and windows of whether the sources were self-published were not mine.
 * I have not removed any "attempts at compromise" without appropriate detailed explanation and discussion above and in fact the particular changes you reference were most recently removed by Weaponbb7 not me.
 * Please supply evidence of where I removed information about "He was born in Glasgow but has lived in London since he was a year old. His father was a bus driver, while his mother worked in a shelter for victims of domestic violence", the nearest I can find was diff where you removed some similar text.
 * You have been editing Wikipedia for 4 years, your complaint that you do not understand what the terms used above mean and appear unable to follow the included links yourself without complaining first, seem disingenuous, particularly considering these links have been used in dialogue with you earlier, albeit not abbreviated. Fæ (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can email Hari all you want, but that won't change the policies here, nor anything else. We're not going to change what the article says simply because Hari says so. (Also, a side note: if you're a conflict of interest towards Hari, you may want to reevaluate your position here.) As to the Glasgow/London thing, the article currently says "Hari was born in Glasgow and has lived in London since he was a baby" and uses Hari's about page as a reference. Is that not sufficient? If we copy the line verbatim from his site then we run into copyvio or plagiarism rules. And what his parents did doesn't really add anything to the article; I find it to be little more than trivia. Again, I will deal with the BLP issues later, once I've had more time to review them. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

HelloAnn - Oh, sorry, maybe I phrased it badly: I emailed Hari to ask if he knew of other reliable sources online for the claims Fae thinks are currently undersourced. I'm not trying to conduct original research. I'm trying to find sources that satisfy everyone.

Fae, you keep accusing me of bad faith. Please stop doing it. I don't think many occasional users of wikipedia would know abbreviations like 'DI' and 'TE' stand for. I've offered lots of good faith edits here, and you keep offering claims that I am somehow lying. I find it upsetting and intimidating and I'd like you to stop please.David r from meth productions (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was obliged to reply to statements you made about my edits and my beliefs that were factually incorrect and I made the effort to point to evidence found on this talk page and in the article history to support my reply. If you can support your complaints about my editing with diffs this would be helpful, calling replies to your persistent complaints bad faith or harassment is not constructive. I would be happy to strike my statement that you have been misrepresenting my edits and exaggerating your case if you can support your comments with verifiable evidence and withdraw those that cannot be supported. I have said that your earlier complaint seems disingenuous, this is not quite the same thing as a accusation of lying as I can believe your behaviour is due to other reasons should you be prepared to explain your actions and the single purpose nature of your account. Fæ (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your tone to me has been so upsetting and unpleasant that it is discouraging me form making my good faith edits to wikipedia, and that's not in my view what admins should be doing. I could go through the claims you say are false and give evidence - anyone who wants to can scroll through the discussion and see you saying these things - but rather than prolonging the row, I'd like to suggest a fresh start. I can see that my tone to you has also been hostile at times, and I apologise. I am sure we both only want what's best for the article. So shall we have a fresh start? Out of respect for your concerns, I emailed Hari and he showed me a totally reliable source for the 'Journalist of the Year' nomination, for example, which I have put into the entry. I hope in fiuture we can discuss our disagreements in this way, by finding the best sources, without insults from you or from me, and reach reasonable compromises. I look forward to Ana's advice on HonestReporting, and hope we can work together as editors. All the best, DaveDavid r from meth productions (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

British, or English?
Don't think it's a big deal, but there seems to be some disagreement about whether he counts as British or English. Given he was born in Scotland and seems (from a cursory googling) to identify as British, this seems a better moniker.

What Claims?
It says that he was criticised for his reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then 'these claims were disputed'. What claims? Sounds interesting. Plus, on the side, does Hari's website really spell 'separatism' as 'seperatism'? Which university did he go to again? Or is this just a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.143 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to the claims. It was a consensus built up over quite a long time that the claims would be linked to so anybody who was curious could find them but not discussed in the entry so as to not give Wiki:UNDUE weight to what is a self-appointed pressure group condemning any public figure who takes the position Hari takes on Israel/Palestine. I'm not especially happy with this compromise, I don't think the claims should be included at all, but I think the compromise was quite hard won and I'd be really reluctant to see it unpicked and woudl try to defend if for that reason. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.24.215 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A very hard-won consensus has been built up around the current descriptions of the Israel/Palestine section. As I 've said before I'm not totally happy with it but have accepted it in the name of consensus-building. Cipergoth is trying to insert the label 'pro-Israeli' into the description fo CAMERA and Honest Reporting as if that is a neutral label. In fact in Hari's response he disputes that they are pro-Israel and argues that are dooming Israel. This is clearly a contested label and shouldn't be used as if it is a neutral description. Please stick to POV rules - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.24.181 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cipergoth is trying to add that they describe themselves as pro-Israel. I'm fine with that as long as we add a balancing sentence later on explaining that Hari disputes the claim they are pro-Israel, quoting his argument. That seems like a fair compromise. However, previously, editors have said this section is too long so I wanted to put it to discussion here and form a consensus. Does anyone object to this proposed solution? - DavidR86.175.24.181 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

3O - With CAMERA and HonestReporting
Sorry for the delay on this. I find the current version of this section to be both problematic, and generally representative of the problem on this page. By this, I mean that it's written like someone was defending their best friend. Something like "No, Johann told me that they're trying to smear anyone who talks about the Palestinians!" Further, the proposed changes by David r - who is both an single purpose account and a clear conflict of interest - are even more unacceptable, as they are even more skewed towards defending Hari. Honestly I don't know how to make this section any better. A point-counterpoint sort of thing, where criticisms against Hari are explained and then countered, wouldn't really be any better, but it would at least give even weight. Maybe. As a side note, I find ref 70 to Pappe's book entirely unnecessary, as it's not really quoting anything in that book; it's just a reference to the book itself. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Annyong. I'll take on board your criticisms. At the moment, the HonestReporting section quotes Andrew Sullivan not to defend Hario but because he is the only reliable source that anyone could find who isn't directly involved in the conflict. If anyone can find another reliable source not involved, I think we should include it too. As it stands, though, that is the only reliable external source anyone can find so I think it's important, if we include the section at all, to include the only reputable source that discusses it.


 * I agree about the reference about Pappe's book, I suggested removing that too. Fae, do you agree we should remove it? If so I will take it out, if not I won't.


 * Re: having a conflict of interest. As I said when I started editing this entry ages ago, I knew Hari when we were students. I haven't seen him in years. I've always been transparent about that. I was advised by admins back then that provided I was always upfront about having known him over a decade ago, and explained it plainly, and edited in line with the wikipedia rules, I was ok. In fact, if you look back over the dispute with Felix-Felix, there were several occassions when I was keeping in criticisms of Hari, and he was deleting them, so I think I'm not guilty of bias.


 * But I'll think carefully about what you say and try to find the best possible solution, and I'd value your advice and guidance. Best wishes, DavidDavid r from meth productions (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Before making any changes, please consider the suggestion at COI. You may believe that you are aiming for balanced contributions but this is not the feedback documented here. If you wish to avoid contention it is fairly straightforward to make proposals for improvements or corrections on this talk page and leave it to someone else to make the edit. As the article is already substantial and relatively stable this does not seem a particular burden. Further disputes are likely to lead to a notice at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) for independent advice and possible action. You may wish to clear the air and raise a notice on COIN yourself in advance of further editing. Fæ (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, it's really helpful. I'll be sure to discuss any future changes on the discussion page first and encourage others to make the edit, as you suggest.David r from meth productions (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Private eye reference
The private eye reference is valid, and Private Eye did write that article - the summary of which can be seen here. This is very important given that Hari has recently been shown to have lied about what the people he interviewed actually said, and must not be removed. --Robhu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhu (talk • contribs) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Private Eye wrote that article. Manifestly they did. But wiki admins have repeatedly asserted that this is not a reliable or valid source, potentially libellous, and in breach of BLP. One user received a temporary ban from Wikipedia for trying to insert this source. Hari has been shown to have taken quotes from other interviews and articles, and represented them as quotes from his interviews. This is shoddy practice and deserving of censure. But its rather different from creating "fictional content" ie. making things up, which is the thrust of the Private Eye accusations. And these accusations are unsubstantiated at best, and belong to a source about which there has already been considerable discussion on Wikipedia. These accusations are in no way proved retroactively by the current proven allegations of misattribution. Nor are they made more substantial by Damian Thompson's piece, which adds nothing to these accusations, and isn't news.

As you can see, I have already discussed this below. Given the history of this issue, and the sources potential violation of BLP, the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of this source. Please read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johann_Hari/Archive_3#Removing_libels Zafio (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the word "propensity" is a weasel word, and reporting these allegations at the start of a section about the plagiarism does tend to prejudice this entire section. But ultimately, this material shouldn't be there at all, for the reasons given above. You've asked me to bring this to the discussion page (which I have done, and in turn haven't deleted the material again), but I don't think there can be a reasonable compromise on this troubled source. I'm interested to hear what you have to say, and I'm still open to your arguments and suggestions. But this may turn out to be one for the admins. Zafio (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that this is now being referred to in the Telegraph. Also in the link you referred to from the earlier discussion (david r from meth productions) appears to be at the center of the controversy at the moment http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/johann-hari-suspended-col_n_896243.html and so the whole situation is suspicious. An admin could come in and rule, but perhaps it would be better if the content (which is certainly valuable) could be reworded and moved to a more appropriate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robhu (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a source that is at best contentious and about which there have been legal discussions needs a better justification for inclusion than your belief that the situation is "suspicious". david r is indeed involved in that thread, but there's a very clear opinion from Wikipedia admin Charles Matthews that the Private Eye material is tittilating, unreliable, and contentious (and therefore in violation of BLP). That is the obstruction to your claim for inclusion - please address it. So far, you have made assertions that the content is valuable, but have put forward no arguments whatsoever about its reliability.

Everything else is irrelevant, including a gossipy Telegraph blog that rehashes the Private Eye allegations and isn't news. Until a newspaper or similarly reliable source provides *evidence* for any of these allegations (The PE article provides none), this material must be removed. For these reasons, I clearly can't agree that rewriting and moving this section is appropriate. I'm therefore deleting again the contentious material. I'm supported in this by WP:V, which states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." You have to prove that this source is reliable to include it. And at least two Wiki admins have already argued that it isn't anywhere near reliable. Zafio (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me put this another way. If Private eye really had uncovered "evidence of Johann Hari's propensity for including fictional content in factual pieces in 2003", we wouldn't be talking about him today. This is a serious issue for all sorts of reasons, and Wikipedia has to deal with this at the level of verifiable fact supported by evidence, and not gossip.Zafio (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the addition of the sentence'In 2003, Private eye questionned whether Johann Hari had actually used the illegal drug ecstasy' with the reference '‘Hackwatch’, “Hari’s Game”, Private Eye, 23 March – 3 April 2003, Number 1076; p. 5. is verifiable and now pertinent to the drug use section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.165.194 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hari's parents
I've added a line about who Hari's parents were to 'early life' with a good source. It seems worthwhile - people might wonder why he has an immigrant name, and his working class background is a recurring theme in Hari's work. What do other editors think? - DavidRDavid r from meth productions (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I pasted in the wrong reference the other day, I've put the right one in now.David r from meth productions (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"His father was a Swiss bus driver..." Did his father drive buses in Switzerland? Or was he a Swiss man who drove buses? Or was he British and drove buses that were Swiss owned? And if so, which country did he drive those buses in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.245.233 (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation for his opposition to gay separatism
Should be http://www.johannhari.com/2004/02/20/the-harvey-milk-school-and-why-gay-seperatism-will-be-a-disaster 93.97.143.90 (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Private Eye source / Chomsky complaints
Evening.

I am a bit confused as to why, in this specific instance, a cited source from Private Eye which helped add depth to the alleged plagiarism section, has been removed. I understand that we have to be careful about a) sources, and b) specific allegations with relation to WP:BLP. That said, the Private Eye source clearly showed that, in 2003, Hari had contradicted himself within months, clearly added fictional elements within factual pieces, and performed slight of hand which broke fully in 2011.

Is there not anyway, at all, that this source could be referenced? It adds context which I think would be better within than out. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've returned the Private Eye source and as anon-editor suggested, balanced with link to Noam Chomsky lecture at LSE praising Hari. I am unsure of value of the Chomsky interaction but opt to leave it, removal pending discussion on Talk page. Chomsky does say he doesn't remember speaking to Hari during the New Statesman lunch, and complains about being misquoted, which complaint is referenced by Hari himself, but the incident could simply be a contradiction in memories. Yonmei (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The interaction with Chomsky is important to this story and featured strongly in the accusations, most of which have turned out to be true and all the evidence has been made available to the public. I do take issue to the way it has been presented here though. This article mentions a difference of opinion, as presented by Hari, but then seems to undo that with reference to Chomsky later praising Hari at the LSE in a 2009 talk. A source is given as evidence for that talk. However, I have accessed that source and searched the transcript for the term "Hari", and it does not exist in the transcript. I have also watched the hour long video of the talk, including the questions and answer section, and not once was Hari, or anything to do with Hari mentioned. In short, the source given for the claim is false. If Chomsky ever did praise Hari, then a source has to be given to prove it, and on this page the precise location of the quote should be presented so that we might easily find it without having to trawl through an hour of video only to discover it isn't true. I am there for going to remove that claim and replace it with a genuine quote from Chomsky and backed up by a genuine source. http://www.medialens.org/alerts/03/031204_Johann_Hari_2.HTM --86.144.127.32 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I googled Noam Chomsky and Johann Hari and came across this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-badSNrfYb4. It's a short clip from a lecture Chomsky gave at the School of Oriental and African Studies, where he does praise Hari's work on Somalian pirates. Something interesting to note is that the uploader of the video, triputix, has exclusively uploaded videos in which Johann Hari features. PapushiSun (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing the accusations of plagiarism
An anon editor removed both sub-sections on the interviews with Negri and Levy (where Johann Hari acknowledges he used their previous writings as if they had said them to him in the interview) and on Thomas and Chavez (where Johann Hari has certainly been publicly accused, with strong supporting evidence, of taking quotes from other people's interviews with them and passing them off as having been said during his interview). Other interview subjects have been referenced on blogs only: these four subjects, while initially raised on the blogs linked to, have been the subject of discussion on mainstream media such as New Statesman, Independent, Telegraph.

While Simon Kelner certainly defends the accusations as "politically motivated", and various journalists have claimed that the practice of taking quotes from elsewhere as if part of the interview is perfectly normal (and Johann Hari's political enemies have certainly made hay of it!) the accusations of plagiarism have proved to be extremely well-founded - and began not with Hari's political enemies on the right, but with an obscure left-wing blog, DSG, whose author(s) happened to be sufficiently familiar with Negri on Negri that they recognised on sight the quotations taken from it, and they were able to back this up by detailed textual quoting: and taken up by the editor of Yahoo!Ireland, Brian Whelan, who identifies himself as a left-wing journalist, and who himself checked the interviews with Gideon Levy.

The interviews with Chavez and Thomas were noted and written up by Guy Walters on the New Statesman, a left-wing magazine: Walters blogs professionally about "false history".

I have removed altogether the anon-editors suggestion that the Orwell Prize Judges for 2008 were asked to investigate only under pressure from a right-wing blogger. The Media Standards Trust make no reference to any pressure from anyone: they simply say the accusations are grave enough that the judges for that year must be asked to reconsider.

I invite the anon editor to get a Wiki login and join this discussion. Yonmei (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Independently of this comment, I happened to notice that one particular section contained an accusation sourced solely from somebody's blog. I've removed it for now under the BLP. If the accusation has reached more reputable sources that have performed some basic fact-checking on the allegation, it should be rewritten with reference to the relevant source, not just somebody's blog. I do not have the time to check all items but I'll put a note on WP:BLPN if one is not already present. --TS 13:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this section blanking. The sources are Hari's own blog (fair enough in his own BLP) and the blog of a well established journalist and author who is explicitly referencing out to supporting newspaper articles in his post. In this case both sources appear to be reliable sources that could support this text, additional citations using the sources already quoted by Jeremy Duns could be added, but blanking appears significant overkill. --Fæ (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The New Statesman also reports on this story . Coldnorthwind (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Does User:David r from meth productions have a COI?
Nick Cohen has pointed out that User:David r from meth productions appears to know intimate details of Hari's biography, has made glowing edits to Hari's own page whilst putting "vile accusations" on the articles of people Hari has had spats with, such as Cristina Odone, Francis Wheen, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson. Someone might want to take a look through his edits? 86.31.137.176 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take this to WP:COIN rather than discuss here. As the last contribution from the account in question was March this year, I doubt that there is anything to do and the account has been advised about COI guidelines already. See Summary of benefits, raising these sorts of issues from a random IP address is unlikely to be helpful. --Fæ (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Section #Accusations of using Wikipedia to self-promote
This section appears tangential at best and misleading at worst. There is no evidence presented that Hari was editing as 'David r', I advised (and warned) this editor about possible COI at the time. Consequently the expression "self-promote" is misleading. The section is tangential; to add a section in a BLP claiming that someone in the past who may have known or been friends with Hari edits the article and temporarily gives it inappropriate weight, does not meet with the WP:IINFO guidance and may fail WP:CIRCULAR. I have removed the section in accordance with WP:BLP but would be open to a proposal here for a revised version if it can be supported by independent sources confirming all the facts and is fully relevant to the biography in accordance with WP:UNDUE. Fæ (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I phrased the title as "Accusations of self-promotion" since the accusations have definitely been made. If David Allan Green manages to figure out "Who is David Rose?" I expect we'll hear more. If not, I guess it's best left alone. Yonmei (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This campaign has not yet been referred to in any reliable source and since it is clearly an attempt at WP:OUTING an editor's IRL identity, Wikipedia's privacy policy should surely take precedence. In the absence of any statement from Hari I feel not only the section of the article should be deleted but this and the preceding section of the talkpage as well. Exok (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that it's only an attempt at WP:OUTING an editor's IRL identity if the theory which has been proposed by the authors of the links in the section deleted is true, in which case WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:CONFLICT and WP:AUTOBIO would also come into play. (But obviously if it's not, that is WP:OUTING without any justification.)
 * And also, honestly, if the theory which has been proposed by the authors of the links in the section deleted (which deletion I agree with, on considered reflection) can be proved to be correct, this will be a part of Johann Hari's biography - not only the edits on his own page but the edits on other pages of people Johann Hari has been in conflict with.
 * But, precisely because this would be a notable issue if proven correct, I agree with the judgement that it is inappropriate to include it now. When I undid the original revision, it was because the editor who blanked the section hadn't (imo) sufficiently explained the reasoning: I think it's clear now why it's inappropriate, and until/unless there is clear verifiable evidence, it shouldn't be on the page. (Aargh AM IDIOT forgot I hadn't logged in.) Yonmei (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad you feel that way, Yonmei. In my opinion, the issue is stalking. Suspects are being investigated and eliminated or accused in a public forum, potentially defamatory associations are being made without the slightest evidence. It is not only Hari whose privacy is at risk; the quarries of this hunt are effectively being forced to declare themselves or face the assumption that they must be guilty. The minor offence of a conflict of interest in no way justifies support for online bullying and harassment. Exok (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, the new statesman is going to run an article tomorrow linking the two, so we might see some more activity off that the back of that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Guy Walters said on Twitter that he'd sent his article to the New Statesman on Sunday night: I would guess since by Tuesday morning it is not yet published, that their legal advice team is considering whether the evidence is sufficient or leaves them open to a charge of libel. If Walters has no more evidence than has already been discussed, I would say the article is likely to be killed - the NS has been quite responsible in publishing only directly verified material, such as the issues about plagiarism in interviews. Yonmei (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If writing about it in Hari's article counts as an attempt to engage in WP:OUTING (even though it is reporting what other journalists have alleged) then I shudder to think whether my contribution to the Signpost would fall foul of WP:OUTING. I'm not sure how OUTING copes with situations where a handful of mainstream media sources (Nick Cohen in The Spectator, David Allen Green of the New Statesman albeit on his personal site and both Damian Thompson and Cristina Odone of The Telegraph) are reporting the allegations. We're not talking about a couple of numpties on a Wikipedia attack site, we're talking about what is essentially a mainstream media sockpuppet investigation. If mentioning that David R may be Hari counts as outing, then we better get the Oversighters in to scrub this thread, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:COIN, WP:BLP/N, WP:POST, the David R user talk page and a fair few other places too. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oversighter here! ;-)
 * In all seriousness, I would consider the current set of sources to be Reliable inasmuchas you can claim that "there are some unsubstantiated allegations that [foo]". I think that given that Hari has not responded significantly (as far as I am aware), much less the claims being proven (or disproven), we should tread very lightly on this topic. However, certainly it would be appropriate to touch on the allegations (as such).
 * FWIW, I'm pretty sure that Private Eye has been deemed inappropriate as a Reliable Source, though I could be mistaken (and I don't particularly agree with that consideration). Blogs (even those on the Telegraph's site) aren't great, but not terrible. Actual coverage by people who've put it through the lawyers first might be helpful. :-)
 * Thoughts?
 * James F. (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry James, BLPs which treat speculations about accounts on Wikipedia as encyclopaedic material? There would have to be significant sources with real facts, not speculation and gossip in blog editorials. Fæ (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian has reported that Johann Hari has been suspended pending an investigation. That is a fact. They connect this to the allegations made by Jack of Kent. Not a blog, but an article, which surely counts as a RS.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian only repeats and links to Jack of Kent's blog which makes an allegation of sock puppetry, however there is no SPI case to point to. It also repeats Cohen's article, which is speculation along similar lines. The fact that the Guardian is repeating the same allegations (but introducing no new evidence) might be sufficient to say something in the article due to the impact the story is having, but my opinion is still that this problematic due to WP:CIRCULAR and the lack of any real evidence behind the allegations apart from edits from months ago being "unflattering" which are likely to be from someone in Hari's orbit rather than Hari himself. Feel free to propose something but I recommend caution, conservative wording and a clear consensus. At the moment we appear to be being led by press interest about our own articles, a very poor precedent for Wikipedia. Fæ (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, added a sentence sourced from today's Guardian, only afterwards reading this. Wrong way round. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please remove it or reword it? The claim of a sockpuppet should be removed as we have no confirmed SPI case and this is therefore highly speculative and refers to Wikipedia processes that the pundits involved may not understand, and the edits that "have been attributed to Hari" actually have not, they have been alleged not positively attributed to. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We have no confirmed sockpuppet case, but that's not what the report states: it notes that Andreas Whittam Smith, Hari's paper's former editor, is investigating the suggestion; this is correct. The second point is valid, and has been fixed by User:Exok.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I disagreed with mentioning the original Jack of Kent call to arms, now that The Guardian has included this matter it is right to report what it is saying. Wikipedia is not the final arbiter of sockpuppetry. Whether there is an SPI case or not, the accusation has been recorded in a reliable source and the article should document this. Exok (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we can exercise editorial judgement which is precisely what WP:BLP encourages us to do. Wikipedia articles are not obliged to regurgitate every recent editorial comment or allegation, particularly when we know the facts are not backed by the primary source (in this case, our own website page histories). Repeating this unsound allegation of sock puppetry is not essential to the text in order to explain the allegation of manipulating Wikipedia articles and appears to be giving in to a thirst for WP:recentism. Fæ (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We should not be interpreting primary sources, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. Exok (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point does not make sense when the primary source is misquoted or misused by secondary sources. The secondary sources must be judged to be unreliable in such a scenario. You are quoting a detailed subsection of BLP to attempt to argue against the lead text of BLP, this also makes no sense. Fæ (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source you're objecting to says "He seemed to have survived the initial plagiarism allegations, but is now facing separate claims of "sock puppetry" – that he used an online alias to hit back at fellow journalists who had criticised his work". What evidence do you have that this is misquoting or misusing anything? It is reporting a development in the accusations against hari: not assuming them to be true, not tying them exclusively to evidence on Wikipedia and not reporting anything that is dependent on an SPI investigation here. So your suggestion that mentioning this is forbidden because it "refers to Wikipedia processes that the pundits involved may not understand" is quite wrong. Exok (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please take time to read my initial point. I am not claiming anything is forbidden, I am saying that including explicit allegations of sock puppetry is recentism, not supported when compared to the primary source in our hands, and fails the BLP policy with respect to our obligation to exercise editorial judgement. Wikipedia is not an automatic news aggregation site, it is an encyclopaedia and content should be judged in the long term historical viewpoint. Sources recently alleged that President Obama was assassinated, we are not in a rush to add this to his BLP when we could still see him live on television (a primary source). Fæ (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete sections of this article
Reading through this bio: It appears definitely established that David R has WP:COIN issues, and appears to have written a great deal of this page. Some of it has been since amended, but some has not, and sections read in a rather disjointed and inappropriately detailed way about incidents and disagreements that are hardly notable.

Suggested new outline for page:

 * 1 Early life
 * 2 Politics (condense International affairs, Domestic politics, and perhaps "Hari's secularism and atheism", into a few paragraphs). Some of the "Public Disagreements" may provide notable material for this section.
 * 3 Controversies
 * o 3.1 Accusations of plagiarism in Hari's interviews
 * May be advisable to condense the four sections here into two, covering the main issues - that Hari admits he would use quotations from the interview subject's previously published material as if said to him in the interview; that it is has been alleged with strong supporting evidence that Hari would take quotes from other people's interviews with the subject and use them, unattributed, as part of his own interview. Negri and Chávez are very notable names, the other four people named in the headers are not nearly as notable: it's oddly unbalanced.
 * o 3.1.1 Material from "interviews with Negri, Levy, Joya"
 * o 3.1.2 Material from "Interviews with Chávez, Thomas, Leslie"
 * o 3.2 Hari's secularism and atheism
 * May be more appropriate to use some material here instead of in "Politics".
 * 4 Awards
 * 5 References
 * 6 External links

I think the page would be shorter, but be more balanced - I don't think a years-ago dispute with the Chapman Brothers, with Niall Ferguson, or with Mark Steyn, are really such a notable part of any political commentator's career that it merits its own subsection. Yonmei (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of Yonmei's suggestions here. I was involved in discussions of this page some years ago, and agree that Dave R may have some COI. I doubt very much that he is Hari, however, accusations that have resurfaced elsewhere on the web. In fairness to Dave R as well, I remember that after some discussion with myself and another editor he agreed to our suggestions of substantial revisions. The article as it currently stands largely reflects those revisions, so I doubt that the article is mainly his work. However, I broadly agree that there is substantial room for trimming here, and Yonmei's suggestion seems fine to me.

People who are suggesting that this page is a fan page (or worse) should also remember that it has a history of vandalism and of editors attempting to include unreliable, defamatory, or unsubstantiated material. In particular, the accusations made by Private Eye are unsubstantiated and several admins have ruled in the past that they are not a reliable source (see archives). Given the current circumstances surrounding Hari's misattribution of quotes elsewhere, and his suspension from the Indy, I have removed this source which isn't any more reliable simply because Hari has been under recent scrutiny. The Private Eye accusations are of a different nature than the plagiarism charges, and seem only to be included here to establish that Hari is an inveterate liar. I've thus removed them as tendentious and unsubstantiated. I think they should remain out of the article unless a clear consensus that they are reliable emerges. And, as I have said, Wikipedia admins have clearly stated in the past that they are not. Zafio (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have all the Private Eye statements been unsubstantiated? Perhaps memory fails me but I thought they had done a piece where they demonstrated the coincidence of wording in articles. I am aware they do seem to have him "in their sights" at the moment if Issue No. 1292 is anything to go by.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any recent Private Eye coverage of Hari (which I haven't seen), but a specific piece from several years ago. Its been quite clearly ruled by a Wikipedia admin as "nothing like a reliable source" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Johann_Hari/Archive_3#Removing_libels_2). Zafio (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Completed page revision
I noticed that other editors had been making changes in the material while I was revising the structure. I don't think I blanked anyone's content changes: if I did it was accidental, and I apologise. I did eliminate some broken links (Johann Hari revised his website structure at some point - most of the older links to his own webpages were broken), and some old disputes which struck me as poorly sourced and not very notable now. If it's felt better to put the disputes back in, I think they should go under "Controversies". Yonmei (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputes section
The bulk of this is sourced the Hari and his oppositions words; which is not even slightly a good idea :) Because we then cherry pick words and phrases with no clear idea of their significance. I'm not sure who wrote this section but they need a lesson in sourcing (see WP:V and WP:RS). I've going to go through and clear it up a bit, particularly for BLP issues, but someone more familiar with the topic needs to find some sourcing. --Errant (chat!) 08:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hari suspended by Independent
Hari has now been "suspended" by the Independent. The article needs to refect this development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.69.67 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This you mean? Might be a bit too soon to tell under article imbalance it says "Long passages in a...biography might be devoted to detailed coverage of a recent controversy". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section
The 'Drug use' and 'Secularism and atheism' look pretty surplus to requirements here-neither particularly controversial or relevant. I propose cutting them unless anyone's got any serious objections.  Felix Felix talk 07:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While the drug use section is superficial, the 'Secularism and atheism' section should be retained. Hari's opposition to the state visit of the Pope gained coverage further than his main newspaper outlet and his strident opposition to religion is still comparatively rare. Philip Cross (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair play, I've removed the drugs section and trimmed the bit on religion.  Felix Felix talk 11:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting the Secularism and Atheism section as I think the fuller version more accurately represents what actually happened in Calcutta. The edit as it now stands omits what Hari's article actually said, which is important given the secularism subheadingZafio (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agreed with Felix's edits: there's a link to Hari's article if anyone wants to read it. Yonmei (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I just checked out the plagiarism controversy section. All in all it comes to over a thousand words, which is far more than the rest of the article combined, and almost twice as much as Hari himself plagiarized from Ann Leslie! I'm sure all of the relevant information could be included in far fewer words. What do people think? Zafio (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was announced a few days ago that Hari would be suspended from the Independent for two months pending inquiry. So I think it would be reasonable to leave the plagiarism section as is for the next two months. It's certainly, right now, the most notable thing in Johann Hari's career. I suspect that if items are cut out, that will only result in visitors to the pages putting them back in, in a haphazard kind of way, which will benefit no one. I'd suggest no extensive cutting of that section at least until the two months suspension is up. Yonmei (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei, I understand the background to this. I've defended Hari on this page over what I thought were some tendentious edits. But he's been caught bang to rights on these allegations. I just think a 1000 words is excessive.. it reads as something of a disjointed essay. What I was proposing was a more concise version of these allegations, but no removal of any factual information or footnotes. However, I agree that given the temperature of the controversy, the safest way may be to leave it as it stands. Zafio (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking it that way. I really think that in two months time, when (hopefully) the inquiry at the Independent and (hopefully) the Orwell Prize judges for that year have both come to a conclusion, it will be easier to edit this into a more concise version, better proportioned to the new layout of the page. Yonmei (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

However, on the secularism issue, I must disagree. My problem with Felix's edit is that it misrepresents Hari's article, or at least underrepresents it. I don't mind about the length, but I would argue that a few words stating what Hari's position in the article was is imperative. The article may have been "critical of Islam" but its misleading to say that is its primary content. The original statement that "Hari wrote an article arguing for freedom of speech to extend to the right to criticise all religions, including Islam", and that this was in response to the UN is more representative of what he actually wrote. Given that this is a secularism section, this is vital information. "Critical of Islam" doesn't really say very much about what he actually said, it just reflects how it was received in Calcutta. Would you agree to some restoration or rewording along these lines?Zafio (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read the article - it certainly reads to me as anti-Islam. The only references to other world faiths are one line in the third paragraph and two lines in paragraphs twelve and thirteen. All the other examples, references, and direct challenges are to or about Islam. Further, what makes this article notable is not that it's a defense of the right to attack Islam or any other religion, which is something that secularists in the West have written before and will be written again, but that when it was republished in Calcutta, two people were arrested for it. Yonmei (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei, I'm sorry but this is all POV. You say it "reads to you as anti-Islam"; well thats debatable.Zafio (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. First of all, that's how the article was received - that's a matter of verifiable fact. Second, do some text analysis. The article is 1237 words, 17 paragraphs. Islam mentioned 8 times, Muslim mentioned 6. Jewish mentioned twice, Christian mentioned once. Direct quotes specifically against Islam "In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say." "Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself." "The ultimate aim of this effort is not to protect the feelings of Muslims, but to protect illiberal Islamic states from charges of human rights abuse, and to silence the voices of internal dissidents calling for more secular government and freedom." - "To the people who demand respect for Muslim culture, I ask: which Muslim culture? Those women's, those children's, this blogger's – or their oppressors'?" "I don't respect the idea that we should follow a "Prophet" who at the age of 53 had sex with a nine-year old girl, and ordered the murder of whole villages of Jews because they wouldn't follow him." Equivalent direct quotes against other religions total three, Judaism, Christianity, and an unspecified belief in reincarnation. "I don't respect the idea that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water and rose from the dead." "I don't respect the idea that the West Bank was handed to Jews by God and the Palestinians should be bombed or bullied into surrendering it." "I don't respect the idea that we may have lived before as goats, and could live again as woodlice." The text of the article, according to how the article can be shown to have been received (and : backed up by objective text analysis) is an attack on Islam.
 * You may wish to believe otherwise. But you shouldn't intrude your personal feelings into editing Wikipedia. Yonmei (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is certainly "critical of Islam" (which is slightly but crucially different), but then I don't deny this, and nor did the final form of Felix's edit. You also suggest that the article is "a defense of the right to attack Islam". The article is about "the right to criticise religion" - thats what it says in the very first sentence. You may think that a right-wing justification for anti-Islamic views, and your entitled to that view, but you have no right to ask another Wikipedia editor to omit relevant information based on your opinion Because thats what you're suggesting - that I leave out any description of the *secular* grounds of Hari's article. Its certainly notable that a defense of secularism in the West led to riots and arrests in Calcutta. Thats what this part of the article ought to reflect. You have no Wikipedia-relevant grounds for removing a well sourced description of the article and the subsequent events. In any case, Felix's revision didn't even link to Hari's article so its not true that the reader can read it himself and make his own mind up. I am going to restore a *short* description of the article and the link. If you think I am wrong, please cite the relevant WP you think supports your view. Zafio (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add a link to the article itself: that should certainly be in there. Yonmei (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Undid the change by Zafio: I don't see that we need descriptions of articles Hari has written when they're available to be linked to, and Zafio included unsubstantiated information about Hari receiving death threats.Yonmei (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC) On what Wikipedia relevant grounds are you removing that very brief description? Also, the reference to death threats was in a previous edit - it wasn't my claim. Happy to have that revoked if unsubstantiated. There were riots, I hope you don't dispute that.

Again, your POV on anti-Islam. My point simply was that anti-Islam is a loaded term - I don't dispute that most of the references to religion in the article are to Islam. You could argue that was pertinent in context. Or not. But as no-one's edit used the term anti-Islam, I thought that was a telling sign that you were imposing your own view on my edit. There's nothing unsourced or unverifiable about my edit - in fact, the shorter version skews the facts by omission. Thats not balanced. And if you're letting your personal feelings, and suspicions, play a part in the editing process, thats something you should think about. I won't be silenced by insinuation. Zafio (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your initial edit, which I undid, included the unsourced unverified information that "Hari subsequently received death threats" but I see you have now removed that, so thank you. I think your framing the article as "arguing for freedom of speech to extend to the right to criticise religion" is not according to WP:NPOV.
 * Further, I have to ask you to keep personal issues which ought to be discussed on our Talk pages, off this Discussion page. We are here to discuss the Johann Hari page, not you. Yonmei (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I also see that you have failed to cite a relevant WP for removing my edit. And I'm astounded that you don't think that the *content* of a controversial article is relevant to that controversy. Zafio (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you as the editor adding or restoring material to demonstrate that it is notable and verifiable. WP:V Yonmei (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I believe I made a case for the notability of the edit above: "Its certainly notable that a defense of secularism in the West led to riots and arrests in Calcutta" et al. You have not offered a counter-argument to that claim for notability. The edit was clearly verifiable. As for your claim that my edit was POV, I have also addressed that. In the first sentence the author writes that the article is about "the right to criticise religion". My characterisation was fair and NPOV in that it paraphrased that argument briefly and concisely. I'm no longer going to make any edits to the page. However, its clear that another editor thinks the following statement is hagiographic: "In February 2009, Hari wrote an article arguing for freedom of speech to extend to the right to criticise religion". And has removed it on those grounds. Hagiography isn't what it used to be. Zafio (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state here that two editors have raised suspicions, and in one case baldly asserted, that I am a sockpuppet for David Rose, about whom there is considerable chatter online and in the press. I want to state that these suspicions have no foundation in fact. I am also withdrawing from editing this page for the time being. I'd concede that the discussion hasn't always been temperate on my part, and I apologize for this, but I haven't been treated with anything like a decent standard of good faith either. I stand by my contribution history, and I have every right to edit this page. I'm just finding it exhausting. Zafio (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. article advocating "the right to criticise all religions."
I'm not really seeing why there is an argument here about how we characterize the article concerned. There is a quality secondary source that describes the article as "[concerning] the erosion of the right to criticise all religions." (As was in the article before I edited it, and is far from hagiographic) The article then goes on to discuss a variety of religions, and the BBC article notes one particular fact which offended opponents of freedom of speech. Here we have a secondary source that tells us what should be in the article. (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing why any charactisation of the article is necessary, beyond the issue that made that article notable - it was critical of Islam, and that got two editors arrested when it was republished in India. The editors were not arrested because of an article claiming the freedom to criticise all religions - they were arrested because they republished an article that was critical of Islam. That's what made the article notable. Yonmei (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your judgement. Meanwhile, the BBC feels it is important to mention the context in which Islam, among other religions, is criticized. If there's a good reason not to include this context in a reliable secondary source, by all means put it forward. Nevard (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

What is not in the article is any mention of Hari's article being 'anti-Islam'. Nevard
 * The phrase "anti-Islam" does not exist in any current edit of the page. Yonmei (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start for secularism/atheism
In short form, what I see as notable about the article we are discussing is not it's critical of Islam while asserting the right to criticise all religions, but that on being republished in India, the editor and the publisher were both arrested following peaceful protests that had turned violent over several days. I started adding this information in, and then I wondered: given that it's not primarily Hari's writing that makes this notable, why is this being added to the Johann Hari page? Ravindra Kumar is a notable person with a Wikipedia page that needs expansion. Can I suggest that editors who are interested by this should turn their attention to researching the material on The Statesman, the editor Kumar, and the published Anand Sinha? The incident itself is notable, but it's not really about Johann Hari: it's about what happened in India.

This is the slightly expanded version which links to the Newswatch India page as well as the BBC, which I considered including and then realised that I felt it was trying to make an Indian incident a part of Johann Hari's biography.


 * In February 2009 an English-language Indian newspaper, The Statesman, republished an article by Hari, critical of Islam, . The editor (Ravindra Kumar) and publisher (Anand Sinha) of The Statesman were subsequently arrested on charges of "deliberate act with malicious intent to outrage religious feelings" under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

I would invite editors who feel that the incident needs further expansion to consider rethinking their approach and expanding the encyclopedic information available on more appropriate pages.

"classical liberal"
In the politics section it says "classical liberal positions, such as drug legalisation and gay rights". This seems to be an incorrect application of the phrase classical liberal, what do these modern causes have to with Gladstone, Bismark, Jefferson style politics? Nothing much. 90.219.89.205 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is an incorrect use of "classical liberal". Say what you like about Johann Hari, but a classical liberal he is not.Wpalfreman (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the question of "free markets", I think the classical liberalism summary fits Johann Hari pretty well. Yonmei (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless he, or a source, has applied the term, isn't this a case of categorising him based on statements he has made - which is OR? GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Classical liberal" is applied in the text of the article to the political positions that Hari has taken, not to Hari himself. The 90.219.89.205 (talk) has been editing various historical articles that are unprotected, arguing that modern terminology ought not to be encyclopedically applied to historical figures. In this instance, I believe 90.219.89.205 (talk) is arguing that there's a 19th-century definition of "classical liberal", which ought therefore not to be used to apply to a 21st-century journalist. The exact phrase used in the article about Hari is "He also espouses republicanism and a number of classical liberal positions, such as drug legalisation and gay rights." Yonmei (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hari's website
Hi,

Just wondering why there's no link to Hari's website (http://johannhari.com/) in the External links section of the page. PapushiSun (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been erratically available for a while, and editors have assumed it was permanently down. Philip Cross (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored it. A subject's official website is unlikely to go offline permanently, and so should not have been removed in the first place. --NSH001 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification, Philip. I wanted to put it back myself but couldn't. PapushiSun (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indie investigation
An editor has queried that there is any reliable source that the investigation includes the separate allegation of WP sockpuppetry. Well, according to the Guardian piece referenced in the body of the article, "It is understood both allegations will be considered by Whittam-Smith" .and the Grauniad is usually scrupulous about corrections. Plus two bloggers (http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/guy-walters/2011/07/johann-hari-independent-prize) have just written open letters to Whittam-Smith and the Indie editor drawing their attention to the seriousness of defamatory material being added to other journalists' WP articles from an Indie IP.Straw Cat (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. However I still feel that the main substance of the controversy is the plagiarism, so that should be all that is referenced in the intro, with the sockpuppetry being dealt with in the body. In any case, the sockpuppetry was very much a lesser included offense in the more serious matter of using wikipedia for defamation of character.  A utomatic W riting  13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent removal from the lede, leaving the material in the body of the article, seems appropriate. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Second picture
Am I alone in thinking that the second picture is rubbish? You can barely see JH at all-he could literally be anyone. Unless anyone's got any objections, I'll delete it in a day or so.  Felix Felix talk 10:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliable?
Does anyone think liberalconspiracy.org by Sunny Hundal is reliable enough to include the alleged anonymous refutation of the July 27 accusation from The Telegraph? FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with it, but I see the author, Sunny Hundal, and the blog, Liberal Conspiracy, have articles on WP.   Will Beback    talk    06:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can say that the usual rule is that self-published blogs are never used for BLPs. Since Hundal is both the editor/founder of the blog, and the author if this specific piece, it seems very much like a self-published source. Even Hundal had an excellent reputation, it still probably would not qualify.    Will Beback    talk    07:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to remove it. The Telegraph stuff was also reproduced in Salon which can be assumed to be reasonably independent in this case: they're over the pond, and probably closer to the Independent than the Telegraph in political orientation. On the other hand, I wasn't able to find a secondary source citing Hundal's defense. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed it myself. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Fortytude, 11 August 2011
List of awards at the end still includes the Orwell Prize which has been rescinded. Details of the incident are given adequately in the main article, but a note next to this particular "award" is surely in order? eg "rescinded July 2011"

Fortytude (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The award has not (yet?) been rescinded. The Independent are due to finish their investigation in September 2011. The Orwell Prize committee have agreed not to make their announcement until after Johann Hari is free (following the end of the Independent investigation) to make further representations to the committee. Yonmei (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:. As Yonmei says, the award does not appear to have been rescinded yet. Once it has been, you can re-request this change with a source saying it has been rescinded, and we can change the article to reflect that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dubai article
This does not appear mentioned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari is not a journalist
So why is he identified as such? That's not misleading, is actually false. --Iano89 (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * He is employed to write articles for newspapers and magazines. What leads you to think he isn't a journalist? - JRheic (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What leads me to think he isn't a journalist? How about this very article's paragraph "Early life": ... he graduated with a double first in Social and Political Sciences at King's College, Cambridge, in 2001. Therefore, it is false and misleading to say that he is a journalist. You're quite right, he is employed by a newspaper to write articles. That does not make him a journalist.--Iano89 (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience. 2. : a person who keeps a journal certainly seems to make him a "journalist."  As a matter of fact, extremely few journalists hold degrees in "journalism."  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (aside) I am very pleased by this definition, Collect. It has cheered me up no end, as I also keep a journal and will now proudly add 'Category:Journalists' to my user page. I may even stop flushing my loo in celebration of my new career. Thanks! Jennifer Government 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! If, indeed, your main occupation is keeping that journal, you certainly are a "journalist."   I rather think this means more than just keeping a casual diary, however.   I also rather think Hari did more than keep a personal diary.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I dedicate most of my working day to staring blankly at said journal, so maybe it counts. But yes, Hari probably did work harder at it than I do. After all, I merely record the dull, factual events of my daily existence and comment on the dull, factual events of the world at large, while Hari had to really work hard and make up "interesting" stuff to share. On reflection, I will not add that category. Thanks! You're the best. Jennifer Government 23:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have just flushed the loo. It is okay to now visit chez Government. Jennifer Government 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)