Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04 Johann Hari

Mediation Case: 2007-01-04 Johann Hari
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: David r from meth productions 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ... On the Johann Hari page


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Me and a guy called Felix-Felix


 * What's going on?

Basically, we can't agree. Felix-Felix appears to be motivated by extreme hostility to Johann Hari, who he has described as “a little tyke”, “trivial”, and a supporter of “genocide” (because he initially supported the Iraq war based on his extensive friendships with victims of Saddam’s rule and visits to Iraq). He described the original wiki entry for Hari – which included accusations that he was soft on paedophiles, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, “fat”, “a Stalinist”, and “naïve” – as “a love letter”, which gives you some sense of how low his opinion of Hari is.

Worryingly, he has repeatedly tried to insert false and libellous arguments into the article. To give just one example, he has tried to claim that Hari – a left-wing writer from a working class family – went to Harrow School, one of the most expensive and elite public schools in Britain. Even when it was pointed out to him that this was wholly false (Hari went to a nearby school!), Felix-Felix kept trying to insert this claim.

Felix-Felix has a perception that Hari is some kind of right-winger, and has attempted to delete from the entry the copious evidence that contradicts this claim. For example, Hari supports total nuclear disarmament by the US, Britain and all other nuclear states, and is a vociferous campaigner on the question of global warming. Felix has tried repeatedly to delete these facts, on the grounds that these positions are “uncontroversial”. I pointed out that far from being “uncontroversial”, the idea of total nuclear disarmament is widely regarded as a radical position and is supported by, for example, just 6 or 651 British MPs, and no US Congressmen at all. He refused to accept this and just kept deleting it without offering a counter-argument.

He is presently trying to delete all the major criticisms of Hari in the entry from prominent right-wingers (presumably because they contradict his false view that Hari is himself a right-winger). He has dismissed criticisms by Bjorn Lomborg, who was named one of the twenty most important intellectuals in the world by Prospect magazine, and David Starkey, who was later named as one of the 100 most important intellectuals in Britain by Prospect. He claims these figures are “spurious” and “unimportant”. However, he believes that a minor blog-based group called Medialens, who he happens to agree with, should be quoted at great length (without quoting Hari’s response).

I believe in quoting a range of critics from across the political spectrum (and as it happens I personally agree with the Medialens criticism of Hari). So I repeatedly offered Felix-Felix a compromise: we should quote Medialens at length, provided we quote other critics at length and quote Hari’s responses. He has consistently refused to do this. He insists that we quote the critics he agrees with, and almost none of the others, no matter how eminent, and give only a single sentence of Hari’s response.

I have a more positive view of Hari than Felix, although I was careful in the entry I wrote to include criticisms by very substantial figures, including Noam Chomsky, Niall Ferguson and the Dalai Lama. Felix sees all of my proposals (even including accusation of being soft on paedophiles) as 'whitewashing', and he accuses virtually everyone who disagrees with him of being a sock-puppet.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * ... I've been offering compromises for ages only to be ignored, but there was one time we did achieve compromise: when a passing third party intervened. So I was wondering if you guys could help us out by coming along and suggesting compromises?


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * ... Felix has agreed to mediation, so you can be as open as you like! Here or on the discussion page of the entry is fine. I'm sorry to waste your time like this but I couldn't think of any other way...

Mediator response

 * I commented briefly on this debate before I realized there was an open mediation request. I will check with the parties to see if they're willing to have me mediate before taking this.  In the interim, if anyone else wants to mediate, please feel free to do so - I won't be offended at all!  TheronJ 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Both parties are cool with me mediating, so I am taking this one. I will investigate and update with some proposals of how to move forward.  TheronJ 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

TheronJ initial thoughts and questions
I have read over the Johann Hari talk page. I recognize that there is a lot more in the archives, but I think I understand enough to get started.

My first thoughts are as follows:
 * 1) It looks to me as if both David r and User:Felix-felix are acting in good faith to make the best encyclopedia as they see it. Both editors have agreed to mediation, and both editors have tried to confine their discussion to the substance of the article as much as possible.  Good for you both.
 * 2) With that said, there have been some jibes, accusations, personal comments, etc. I think that's understandable in light of the heat of the disagreement, but I am proposing that both of you make a new start, as my first "compromise proposal," below.  I'm not making a judgment on who started anything or whether either of you was wrong, but I think it would be most constructive to forgive and forget any past comments, accusations, sockpuppetry, or really anything else and just start fresh.
 * 3) After that, I'm open to how you guys want to go forward. Can you both put together a brief statement of (1) what you think the disagreement is regarding the Johann Hari article and (2) what you would like to see mediation achieve?  You can add those brief statements immediately below this paragraph.  Thanks!  TheronJ 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Charles Matthews
I think a number of the basic points Felix-felix has made are sound. The article should not read like hagiography, and crisp style is better than overextended quotes (the man's a hack, not an academic, and he doesn't so much develop arguments as make a succession of phrases). There is no need to add in every minor thing about Hari. This point is made on WP:COI, under the notion of salience. We want the salient facts about Hari, and the rest can wait.

That being said, I don't like the niggling that has gone on. It is not collegiate to chafe away at every factual detail. Both parties here seem a bit too close to the subject, one way or another. And their approach to each other is adversarial, in a way not acceptable here. Charles Matthews 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

David and Felix's responses to initial questions
''David and Felix: If you would, please lay out, in a few sentences, (1) your perception of the current disagreement regarding the Johann Hari article, and (2) what you would like to see this mediation achieve. Thanks, TheronJ 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)''

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

TheronJ compromise proposal 1: Fresh Start
It looks to me as if both editors are trying to write a good encyclopedia, but that their content disputes may have left some bad blood between them. I propose that both Felix and David agree to try their best to make a fresh start -- to forgive and forget any jibes, accusations, sockpuppetry, accusations of sockpuppetry, or any other stuff that may or may not have happened in the past, and "start fresh" with the assumption that the other editor is at least trying to write a good encyclopedia as he sees it.

Note: this compromise is aspirational, not actionable. If things start to break down again, the compromise can't be used as a "club" to accuse the other party of failing to completely forgive, forget, or whatever. (I might remind you of it, however). Also, if the worst happens and you guys find yourself in arbitration, past acts may be cited as evidence as needed. All this compromise does is symbolize your agreement to work together on a fresh start basis in this mediation and on the article page.

David and Felix, please indicate whether you agree or disagree below. (You should absolutely feel free to disagree or suggest changes if you have concerns. I'm suggesting this as an initial compromise and I think it's a good idea, but it's voluntary.)  Thanks, TheronJ 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree:
 * Yep, seems like a good start to me.Felix-felix 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, thanks ever so much for volunteering 86.129.136.92 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree:

Discussion


The disagreements were summarised and numbered on the edit page:

1. Which photo(s) should be included (link to photos?). (The photo Felix wishes to be used is not in fact of Hari, however).

[NOW RESOLVED, it seems: consensus against use]

2. Whether Hari being the youngest person ever nominated for the Orwell Prize should be mentioned. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

[UNDER DISCUSSION BELOW]

3. Whether criticism by Bjorn Lomberg should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

4. Whether criticism by David Starkey should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

5. Whether Hari's position on nuclear disarmament should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

6. Whether Medialens should be quoted, while simultaneously cutting out other critics, and leaving out Hari's response to Medialens and the salient opinion poll data

7. Whether Hari's criticisms of Che and Galloway should be grouped together as criticisms of the communist-supporting left (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

8. Whether Hari's 2006 nominations as Secularist of the Year and Gay Journalist of the Year should be included (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

10. Whether there should be removal of the environmental and nuclear disarmament passages altogether (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

11. Whether there should be removal of the enlightenment passage. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

12. Whether the gay and women's sections should be cut down-specifically the quotes and paraphrases from individual articles. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

13. Whether there should be the removal of his views on certain television programs. And the criticism of those views. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

14. Whether there should be the removal of criticism by Oliver Kamm for praising Chavez. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

15. Whether we should cutting out as many quotes as possible, replacing them with short summaries of his position. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

16. Whether, when Hari is described as a social democrat, rather than simply saying that this involves a market economy, it should also say "counterbalanced by strong interventionist governments and strong trade unions". Otherwise it distorts his position. (Dave says yes, Felix has not expressed a position)

Felix has in the past agreed to the Enlightenment passage as a compromise. He now appears to have retracted this compromise. David r from meth productions 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, as a starting offer, I will reluctantly concede on point 13 if Felix reluctantly concedes on point 10. David r from meth productions 13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, David. Felix, as a first step, could you put together a short statement identifying (1) what you think is the central dispute between you and David, and (2) what you would like to get out of the mediation?  I will try to put together a plan to address both of your goals.  TheronJ 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also say: my goal is for the entry to both accurately describe Hari's political positions, using quotations from the horse's mouth wherever possible, and to include a broad range of critics from across the political spectrum, again using direct quotation wherever possible. What I want to avoid is the article representing the POV of one particular editor, quoting the critics he agrees with and ignoring everyone else. I think the entry for Peter Hitchens, another journalist of a similar profile but very different politics, is a pretty good template. Nobody in the discussion there has ever suggested this is anything other than a good model for a wiki entry of a journalist commentator. David r from meth productions 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the main bone of contention between daver and myself is one of emphasis, and style. By that, I tend to feel that daver is makes edits which are flattering to Hari, or overly emphasise disagreements or controversy concerning things that he has writen about. I'm more critical, and feel that most of the subjects that he writes about could be covered in simple summarising sentences or, at most paras-without recourse to long quotations. Ironically, the only thing which hari has written about in which our positions were reversed was about his stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which he (fairly notoriously) supported-although he later recanted-I was in favour of criticism here, daver was not, except with caveats. The overall style of the article, in my view suffered with this approach-being in the format Hari said "I think that blah blah blah" however, his was criticised by Mr X who said "Hari is being blah blah blah" At one point this format was applied to most passages in the article-many of which were not notable (Hari's views on soap operas and sketch shows, for example). I also felt that daver tended to write in a hyperbolic style that was often overlong and often unverifiable. I think that alot of the problems on the page have come from bad blood betwen us-and revisiting the issues, one at a time through a neutral third party, in the absence of personal attacks, might move things forward. Or not. But I'm happy to give it a go.Felix-felix 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I apologize for taking so long. Those comments are helpful.  My plan is to summarize what I think are the relevant policies and guidelines, then start taking on David R.'s line items one by one, but it may take a few more days to get all the policies together.  TheronJ 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush, Theronj. it might be worth checking out the comments by mr Thomas on the Hari discussion page, recently added. They reflect a growing consensus on the page about how to resolve some of these issues... David r from meth productions 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I made some points on the list of disputed points, but have been told that here would be the most appropriate place. Essentially I think that as wikipedia is not paper the article doesn't have any pressing need to be shortened (it is not of unreasonable length in my opinion), and the accusations of non-notability are controversial, so I reckon they should stay in. Generally then I agree with David. I didn't notice any violations of NPOV on the page. All of what I said is on the list of disputed points on Hari's talk page, but I'll post the most important ones here (if this is unwanted then I suppose someone can just delete them?):


 * 7) I think they are important to include (esp. Galloway, obviously), but I don't necessarily think that they should be lumped together. If others decide that the Che part is irrelevant I would not be devastated if it were removed, although I wouldn't recommend it myself.
 * 8) I think they are relevant (nominations for awards do acknowledge ability/importance).
 * 10) I don't think they are spurious. I don't see a compelling reason for removing them (or the input of Starkey and Lomberg), given that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. I don't think they are excessively detailed, and they give valuable insight into the subject.
 * 11) I think this is a pretty important aspect to Hari's writing (it informs a lot of the rest of it, and is a pretty important part of someone's political philosophy nowadays, especially within the left).
 * 12) I think these sections are pretty useful for understanding Hari. I don't feel strongly either way about trimming, but I do think they should remain generally. (Also for this point I see no problem with mentioning his sexuality - I think this was discussed somewhere on the talk page?)
 * 15) Quotes are often as good as short summaries, and give a better feel of the writer. However, so long as this is done well and fairly I don't have a massive problem with it.

Hope that was of use. Mr-Thomas 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who's been following the debate on the Hari discussion page since it started I'm pleased to see that the Wikipedia authorities have found the issues at stake important enough to merit mediation.

I feel strongly that, in relation to point (10), Hari's views on the environment and nuclear energy ought to be fully covered, particularly in light of their relevance to news items and events which are highly topical and only likely to increase in importance over the coming years. The same can obviously not be said of the Enlightenment and television. Thelionforreal 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's two other little changes I'd like to make;

(1) Where it says: "Hari describes himself as a "European social democrat", who believes that markets "must exist as an essential tool to generate wealth"." This only shows half of the social democratic equation, and is therefore quite misleading. It should say: "Hari describes himself as a "European social democrat", who believes that markets "must exist as an essential tool to generate wealth", but must also be matched by strong trade unions and strong democratic intervention to counterattack their many negative effects."

(2) Where it says: "Many people on the left, most notably Noam Chomsky[45], believe Hari's initial support for the invasion of Iraq, after visiting Saddam's Iraq, contradicts his self-description as a left-winger. Hari always opposed the WMD rationale for war and said "the Bush administration is very obviously not doing this for the right reasons, to say the least"; but he believed – on the basis of opinion polls – that "a majority of Iraqis would rather takes their chances with a horrible American occupation than with the living hell of Saddam and his sons for generations to come." I would make two changes. "many" should be changed to "some", and "on the basis of opinion polls" should be changed to "on the basis of visiting Saddam's Iraq, extensive interviews with the exile community, and opinion polls taken within Iraq".

David r from meth productions 14:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Renewing mediation discussion
Sorry, guys -- I had big plans to survey all of the relevant policies and guidelines and start things out with a treatise on the relevant guidelines, but that turned out to be a bottleneck that I could never quite squeeze through.

Maybe the best way is to take things one at a time. Would one of you like to identify a single dispute that you think it would be helpful to start with? (Ideally, something that can be summarized in 1-2 sentences, even if it takes more text to fairly represent the dispute). Once we pick one starting issue, I promise to be more responsive in my mediation. Thanks, TheronJ 22:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi theronj, no probs about the delay, my working is weighing me down at the moment too.

Shall we take the issues in blocks and start with these pretty straightforward ones?

1. Which photo(s) should be included (link to photos?). (The photo Felix wishes to be used is not in fact of Hari, however). 2. Whether Hari being the youngest person ever nominated for the Orwell Prize should be mentioned. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no) 3. Whether criticism by Bjorn Lomberg should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no) 4. Whether criticism by David Starkey should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

My view: (1) I'm in favour of photos that (a) are actually Hari, and (b) are not deliberately chosen to be the most weird or unflattering ones. Felix tried to impose on the entry a picture he has, on anotehr website, linked to from the word 'unpleasant'. He thereby admits this is an espeically unpleasant picture, despite denying it here. This breaches POV rules. I am in favour of a neutral picture of Hari along the lines of the first one posted here.

(2) The argument for the Orwell prize is that it's pretty impressive to be by far the youngest person ever nominated for this award, and says something about the quality of Hari's worth.

(3) Basically, the argument for Lomborg and Starkey is that they are, according to Prospect Magazine, two of the 100 most important intellectuals in the world and Britain respectively. Their opposition to Hari's views on environmentalism and nuclear weapons are therefore significant. Felix has objected to them because he believes, bizarrely, that hari is a right-winger, so Hari being criticised from the right contradicts the POV (that hari is a "self-publicising careerist, and an espeically unpleasant one at that" and believes in "the destruction of untermenschen") he is trying to impose. I advocate including them in line with excluding POV edits, and bearing in mind the rule that wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.

Felix can now post the arguments against all this!

Thanks again

David David r from meth productions 10:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For a single issue let's start with the photo. Dave is insistant that a particular mugshot which has copyright be used. This has not been cleared, and I'm not opposed to it being used if and when the copyvio is sorted out. However, I found and uploaded a copyvio free pic of Hari at an environmental camp at the Drax power station, which dave disliked as he felt it was unflattering. However it showed him working, and I and another editor rather liked it. Dave then claimed it wasn't Hari, despite it being positively identified by the photographer, another editor who went to college with Hari, Hari having written about atending the camp, and it clearly being Hari. I think the photo should be included as well as the mugshot that dave favours.I can provide links, if you can't bear to go through the (almost unreadable)discussion.
 * How's that for starters?  Felix Felix talk 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Issue 1: Photo
Ok, thanks guys - I will take a look at your discussions of the photo and come back with some suggestions or more questions. TheronJ 14:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, Hari himself has said it isn't him; my first response, if you look it up, was that it doesn't look like him; it isn't him. It would be bizarre to use a picture that the subject says is fake, when there are so many other pictures we can use.


 * Rather than embark on that slightly surreal diversion, an easy solution to this, since Felix has agreed the original picture is fine if we can sort the copyright issue, is to sort the copyright issue. hari has said he owns the copyright and is happy for anyone to use it. TheronJ, can you suggest a way for him to put the copyright clearly in the public domain? Are there websites and whatnot? Just let me know and I'll e-mail him, it might take a while because he's a busy guy, and get him to do it. That's an easy one, and we have a compromise, so shall we move on to the next three?

David r from meth productions 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a helpful suggestion, Dave. Let me take the day to get my feet under this one, and then I will include it in the list of possible compromises.  TheronJ 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand the dispute, but have a few follow-up questions. First, am I correct that:

1. Dave prefers this image, and reports that Hari (1) owns the copyright personally, and (2) has told Dave that he is willing to release the copyright to the public domain? Felix has no objection to that image if the copyright issues can be resolved, but also wants his preferred picture in the article.

2. Felix prefers this image, either in addition to or in place of Dave's preferred image. Dave opposes Felix's preferred image because (1) the image is unflattering and (2) Hari has reported to Dave that the image is not actually him.

Second, some addition questions:

3. What is this image? Do either or both of you object to using it, and, if so, why? (Also, assuming that the photo was taken by Lucas Smith, can we be confident that it is in the public domain?)

4. Has Hari ever communicated with the Wikipedia editors or board, or edited Wikipedia directly? Do we know what his position is with regard to his Wikipedia article?

Thanks, TheronJ 14:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Correct. 2. As far as dave tells us, correct. 3. Nope, this is a copyvio picture, according to dave (and I think he's right, too). 4. Nope, we only have reports via dave.  Felix Felix talk 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Felix and I agree on this. Feel free to e-mail Hari, he's at j.hari@independent.co.uk

- DaveR


 * I don't really see why anything Hari has to say on the matter is particularly relevant though.He's not even a contributing editor to the article (as far as we know).  Felix Felix talk 14:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the rules on entries on living persons. If the subject of a wiki entry says a photograph is not of them, that should clearly be taken pretty seriously. Anyway, why not simply accept the compromise of sorting out the copyright vio, Felix? David r from meth productions 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it you're talking about WP:BLP, dave-but exactly which bit did you mean? There's nothing about having to get approval from the subject to use pictures-in fact, you might want to check out WP:BLP. Anyhow, we probably shouldn't get into exchanges between ourselves here, as we're supposed to be in mediation-I suppose...  Felix Felix talk 23:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." I'd say a photo that the subject (and people who know him) say isn't him is pretty obviously conjectural and poorly sourced! - DavidR


 * How does any of that apply to pictures, dave-it's referring to cited sources for written material. even if it referred to pictures, how is this not sourced? It was taken at the Drax station camp, which Hari attended, and wrote about, he is positively identified by the photographer and an independent editor here, (as well as anyone who takes a few seconds to look at the picture). You say that Hari reckons it isn't him, (and we know you dislike the picture already) but I don't see why that makes it contentious-and even IF Hari doesn't reckon it's him-why does he have any more say over this than any other editor?-it's neither libellous nor indeed defamatory-it's a perfectly good pic of him working.  Felix Felix  talk 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines relevant to photo dispute
I think it may be helpful to start at first principles to see if we can reach some resolution on this dispute. In no particular order, here are the policies and guidelines that I think have some relevance to the photo dispute. (I am not saying that any of them directly applies or decides the issue, just that considering them may be helpful in resolving the dispute.) If you guys have any more, feel free to add them here. Coming next -- how I think these policies and guidelines inform this dispute. TheronJ 14:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is a good article, item 6 - A good article "contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic." You both seem to be interested in illustrating the Hari article, although you have some disagreements in tone.  Good for you.
 * Copyrights and fair use. We can't use copyrighted images unless those images have been released for use consistent with the GDFL or are permissible under the fair use doctrine.  Even "fair use" images may not be used when an adequate free alternative is available.  See Fair use, "Policy," Item 1.  See also Copyright FAQ.
 * Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive when dealing with articles about living persons, and demands the highest quality sources for contentious material.
 * Attribution (Formerly known as "verifiability" and "reliable sources"). All material on Wikipedia that is likely to be challenged must be attributable to a reliable source.  Self-published sources generally aren't reliable, subject to a few exceptions.

Application of policies and guidelines to this dispute
Here's my initial take on how I think the policies and guidelines may apply to this dispute. I should say that no one should feel compelled to agree with me -- I'm just another Wikipedia editor. Still, take a look and see if this analysis might be helpful in the two of you reaching a constructive consensus.
 * 1) Everybody seems to agree that Dave's image is acceptable. I will try to figure out how to resolve the copyright issues, and follow up with Dave  That leaves us with whether we can use Felix's image.
 * 2) As an initial matter, the image in question does look a lot like Johann Hari. I also tend to agree with Felix that if permissable, the image might be good because it appears to show Hari practicing his trade.  I don't personally see the image as unflattering, but I respect that Dave's opinion in that regard is in good faith.
 * 3) On the other hand, it is possible, I suppose, that the picture happens to be of some other guy who looks a lot like Hari, and was just mis-labelled by the person who took the picture. (I.e., Hari was there, and the picture looks a lot like Hari, so it got captioned as Hari when it was uploaded).  I don't have any idea how likely it is that this is Hari or a Hari look-a-like.
 * 4) WP:BLP requires a higher degree of sensitivity in articles of this kind. Assuming that Hari himself finds the image to be false and unflattering, we should at least take those concerns seriously.
 * 5) Although there are some good reasons to believe that this is a photo of Hari, there are no reasons that comply with WP:ATT. Specifically, our basis for concluding that this is Hari is (1) that it looks like him; (2) that it is captioned as being taken at an event that we have good reason to believe that Hari attended; and (3) that it is captioned on Flickr as being Hari.

For me, assuming that Hari actually denies that this is him, I tend to think it's better to leave the image out. My initial instinct therefore is (1) the claim that this picture is Hari is at least somewhat controversial; (2) although not fantastically derogatory, WP:BLP means we should take a conservative line to sourcing; and (3) WP:ATT says that we can't use self-published sources, or unsourced information, for controversial claims, and (4) the Flickr page, or a page on www.climatecamp.org.uk, if there is one, wouldn't qualify as reliable sources for controversial claims.

However, I definitely don't want to cram a solution down anyone's throat - we work by consensus on Wikipedia, so if you guys aren't convinced, that is absolutely fine. I would therefore request that no one try to use this initial opinion as a club to beat the other one with.

Next up, some proposed next steps to resolve the photo dispute. TheronJ 14:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some possible next steps to resolve the photo dispute
Felix, Dave, once you have finished reading my suggestions above, we can decide what you think would be helpful to resolve the photo dispute. Here are some suggestions -- let me know if you think that any would help you in resolving your concerns, in explaining your viewpoint to the other editor, or in searching for possible compromises. Thanks - let me know if you think any of these options would be helpful! TheronJ 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) As I have said, I will look into the copyright issue and give Dave some suggestions about how to get his preferred image on the site. With regard to the other image, there are several possibilities:
 * 2) Discussion: If you disagree with anything above, or think there is something else that needs to be explained or addressed, we can discuss it here and look for opportunities to reach consensus.
 * 3) Compromise: Is it possible to agree on some third image to be used as a compromise? As I mentioned, the copyright to this image appears to be held by Lucas Smith - maybe we could e-mail him and ask him to release the image to the public domain?  Alternately, if Hari is in touch with Dave, maybe Hari could provide some additional images himself.
 * 4) Contacting Hari: Part of this dispute may be a result of the fact that Hari is communicating with Dave rather than with Wikipedia directly. If there are any concerns about Hari's precise opinion regarding the image or his article, maybe we could resolve those by having Felix or myself contact Hari directly.  (I am not questioning Dave's good faith -- Dave himself has invited us to contact Hari).
 * 5) Outside opinion: Alternately, it is often helpful to get some experienced but uninvolved editors to chime in to see which way the "weight of opinion" lies. If it would be helpful, I could put together a request for comment and ask RFC commenters and regulars on the BLP, ATT, and image talk pages to give their opinions.

I appreciate your work here, theronj, on summarising the rules. It seems a bit odd to carry on with this argument about the Drax picture (of somebody else) when we have a perfectly good compromise that I accept and Felix accepts: let's get the original picture in the right copyright configuration, which surely isn't that hard, and everyone's happy. Shall we move onto the next few subjects, like Starkey and Lomborg? - DaveR David r from meth productions 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I think that's a pretty good summary, TheronJ-in terms of your points above; However..
 * Discussion-I'm not sure there are additional issues that need to be raised with regard to the photos.
 * Compromise-I've never been against the indy picture that is currently copyvio. Additionally, apart from the 3 pics that you've linked to, I don't think there are any which are potentially usable for WP.
 * Contacting Hari-As this is mediation, I think that we have to accept that daveR (who has repeatedly said that he's a good friend of Hari's) has been in contact with him, and as such, I'm pretty sure that Hari doesn't like the Flickr picture that I (and other editors) favour.
 * Outside opinion-I would be very interested in a RfC over the issue of the Flickr picture-is it ok for the subject of an article to veto sourced info (be it pics or written material) by saying that it's not them, even if it clearly is? For example-what if George Galloway said that this picture wasn't him? Would it be excluded on that basis alone?

As an aside, I note that the copyright of the Flickr picture isn't public domain, but that could be sorted out as easily as the other pictures.  Felix Felix talk 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, that gives me my next marching orders. I will look at Dave's copyright issues and put together an RFC asap.  (Dave, I understand that you and Felix agree on using your preferred picture if permissible, but it looks like you still disagree about whether you should also use Felix's preferred picture - Felix says yes, you say no.  However, we're halfway there on point one, maybe even more.  ;-) ) TheronJ 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit surreal. That picture really isn't Johann. That was my suspicion when I first saw it, and when I e-mailed Johann, he said he doesn't own the clothes 'he' is wearing in the picture. Clearly the photographer mistook somebody who looks a bit like Johann for him; easy to do, since there were presumably lots of people milling around at a large environmentalist protest, but it would make it really bizarre to use it in a wikipedia entry. - DaveR
 * I appreciate and understand your point, Dave. Without taking a side, though, Felix says that he thinks the picture obviously is Hari, and therefore should go in.  Given that you both think that you are right, are acting in good faith, that leaves us with how to resolve the issue.  The Wikipedia powers that be normally won't step in to decide "content disputes," and prefer that people engage in dispute resolution.  It can be a pain in the rear, but I've seen bitter enemies work together to make some pretty good articles, and at the end of the day, I think the best outcome of this mediation would be if you and Felix find a way to resolve your differences in the future.  There are a bunch of ways to do that, most of which are discussed at the dispute resolution page.  So far:
 * You guys tried step one, discussion, and are still deadlocked;
 * You tried step two, letting the dispute sit for a while, but it's still a point of disagreement;
 * You're in step 3.1, informal mediation, and have agreed to a truce;
 * In mediation, we have clarified everyone's positions, and have identified the policies and guidelines that may apply to this dispute in an attempt to identify objective criteria to serve as a basis to resolve the dispute, and reached broad agreement about the applicable policies and guidelines, but still disagree regarding their outcome.
 * With all those steps exhausted, we are going to try step 3.2, bringing in some outside editors and asking their opinion. That process isn't binding, but it's often helpful.  If you're as clearly right as you believe you are, most will agree with you, and with any luck, the weight of opinion and the various arguments raised will help you present your case.  If they don't, make an effort to figure out why they didn't to see if it identifies a possible resolution.
 * So in short, you and Felix (and I) have been doing everything right - good for us! I know it can be a lot of work, and not all disputes need to ring all the bells on the dispute resolution checklist, but if nothing else, maybe we can use it as an exercise to find a mechanism through which you and Felix can find some way of working together constructively.  Thanks, TheronJ 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (P.S.: Technically, there are a few exceptions when admins will interfere heavily in an otherwise civil content dispute, particularly emergencies relating to copyright and BLP issues. However, since none of the offending material is currently on the page, I don't think this is an emergency, and my request for comments will include the BLP board, which should address any BLP concerns.  TheronJ 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks, TheronJ, for being a real gent (or gal, I suppose) about this-much appreciated.  Felix Felix talk 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Theronj, this is very helpful and I think the right thing to do. - DaveR


 * Thanks guys -- I have drafted a proposed RFC blurb at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04 Johann Hari/Draft photo rfc. In my experience, it's very helpful to make sure that everyone agrees on the language before the comments start coming in -- can you both take a look and let me know whether you think that my description is fair and complete?

Update regarding photo dispute and request for next discussion topic
Dave, Felix, I added a section for the photo RFC on the Johann Hari talk page and posted requests for comments on the Biography RFC page,, WP:ATT talk page, and WP:BLP noticeboard. In a few days, we should be able to see if any of the incoming comments are helpful in breaking the dispute. I left out Dave's comments regarding his suspicions of Felix's motives, and Felix's responses. Dave, if you want to put them back in, we can discuss it, but IMHO, the best way to proceed is to just discuss the issue on the merits - the commenters won't have the ability to decide whether Felix is out to tarnish Hari's name, and accusing Felix of bad motives makes it difficult for the two of you to reach consensus. Let me know if you have concerns.

While the RFC bubbles along, we could pick a second issue to discuss, if you guys would like to. Any suggestions? Thanks, !TheronJ 13:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not go down the numbered list above? The issue of Hari's nomination for the Orwell prize?  Felix Felix talk 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation issue 2: Orwell prize nomination
Given that the photo issue seems to be making some progress and #2 on Dave's list was the Orwell Prize nomination, let's go on to that. First, am I correct in understanding that: In general, this might blend in with a larger discussion of "how much detail should be included", so if either of you guys think that other issues should be addressed with this one, let me know. Pending that, let me ask a couple questions: Thanks, TheronJ 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Dave wants the article to include a reference that Hari is (currently) the youngest person ever to be nominated for the Orwell Prize, and argues that even though Hari didn't win, being the youngest person ever nominated is notable enough for inclusion;
 * 2) Felix opposes inclusion, arguing that without a win, nomination by itself isn't notable?
 * 1) Is there a reliable source to cite for the statement that Hari is the youngest ever nominee, or even that he was nominated?
 * 2) Do we know what the nomination process for the Orwell Prize is? Who is able to nominate candidates, and how many candidates are nominated in a given year?


 * That would indeed be the case.  Felix Felix talk 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your summary is totally right, theronj. In answer to your questions:

(1) Here's a BBC report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/review/4977814.stm or an Independent report: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1153578.ece (2) Perhaps it should say the youngest person shortlisted, since (from memory) hari was on a shortlist with five other people. I think any journalist can be nominated by his or her paper. The distinction is in being the youngest person to be shortlisted, as the Indie report says.

For more info there is a wiki entry for the Orwell Prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwell_Prize I would make the point wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; this is clearly a notable accolade and tells the reader an important fact about how Hari's writing has been recognised as impressive by some people. - David R


 * Felix, are you 100% opposed to inclusion of the statement that as of 2005, Hari was the youngest person short-listed for the Orwell prize? In other words, would you be willing to consider including the statement (1) if it was worded appropriately or (2) if you and Dave were able to reach agreement on some other issue on the list?  Thanks, TheronJ 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much-it fails WP:NOT in my book (and the books of others), and most of the reason that I'm here is to stop this article turning into a long CV for Hari.  Felix Felix talk 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be prepared to compromise on other issues to resolve this one (I would very reluctantly concede, say, that Hari's views on TV shows could be excised); but Felix seems to be saying he is implacably opposed to any reasonable bargain, a position I hope he'll change.

Re the WP:NOT, I think those rules count in my favour here. It says clearly:

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page."

The nomination is a clearly veified statement of very clear relevance. The idea that this is a CV for Hari, is, I'm afraid, a sign of Felix's extreme hostility to Hari.   accuses him of being soft on paedophiles, offensive to the mothers of murdered children, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, "naive", "fat" and "beneath contempt" (as it did before Felix cut huge chunks out of the entry) was a CV! Whose CV includes statements like that? David r from meth productions 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave, are you going to carry on these personal attacks, or attempt mediation? It's one or the other in my view-and as you requested this mediation, I think thatm it behoves you to behave better than this if you want to cary on with the mediation that you asked me to participate in. What's it to be?  Felix Felix talk 15:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's revealing that you take a straighforward factual description of some of the things you have said and done on the Hari page as "a personal attack".

You made an argument that this entry is like a CV for Hari. I responded by saying only somebody who despises Hari, could think that, and gave evidence. Which CV, anywhere on earth, describes its subject as being soft on paedophiles, offensive to the mothers of murdered children, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, "naive", "fat" and "beneath contempt"? (Please answer this, rather than dodging it by claiming you are offended by a factual description of your behaviour).



Let's discuss the Orwell Prize nomination. You say this entry is a CV for Hari. Why not answer my response or, if you do not have a response, concede that you were wrong so we can move onto the next item on the agenda?

Theronj, I appeal to you for advice on this. How can I answer Felix's arguments in a way that will not cause him to claim that I am attacking him? How can I discuss his very clear agenda based on hatred of Hari in a way that is simply straighforward and makes everyone aware of the facts?

That's all I'm trying to do. I am keen to talk about the Orwell Prize nomination and the other factors on the agenda and reach consensus.David r from meth productions 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll post more later, TheronJ 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will try to post some more later, but my immediate suggestion is that Dave try his best to stop accusing Felix of bad intentions towards Hari.
 * At a general level, whether Felix likes Hari, or whether Dave likes him, is irrelevent. Both of your jobs is to write the best encyclopedia article you can -- try your very best to understand the other editor's viewpoint, and see if you can come up with a compromise that addresses both of your concerns.
 * At a more specific level, accusing Felix of being a bad faith editor out to unfairly tarnish Hari's name, or whatever, won't help and may hurt. It will be understandably hard for Felix to agree with you on everything if the reason he's supposed to agree with you is that he sucks.

I take your point, theronj, but what do you do when somebody has a very clear negative agenda they're trying to impose on an article? Take the CV point. Nobody who doesn't detest Hari could think this entry is a "CV" for him.

So. Back to the issues. Re: The Orwell prize - The arguments for including: wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; this is a clearly relevant and salient fact that tells you something interesting and important about the subject.

The argument against...? Over to you Felix:

- David R


 * I removed several comments that I don't think will be productive to the mediation. I'm not saying they're personal attacks, or deserve punishment, or that they're not, just that I don't think they will be productive.  Here's my 2 cents.
 * It doesn't matter if Felix thinks Hari is a talentless jerk or not, and it doesn't matter if Dave thinks Hari is an important and influential journalist with a lot of positive qualities or not. Every time you get into an argument about how the other person feels about Hari, you're going to decrease the chances of the two of you working together productively.  I've had some positive intereractions with an editor who is such a staggeringly small-minded POV jerk that I suspected him of being (unpaid) campaign staff for the article subject.  As much of an idiot as the editor was, once I started working with him, he actually found some reliable sources that I wouldn't have known about.  They were all in favor of his preferred candidate, of course, but the article was better for having someone with a POV different from mine suggesting changes.
 * Try to get to the substance of individual arguments, not the identities of the people arguing. For example, if Felix says "I think the article reads like a CV," good questions might be "Why do you think that, Felix," or "What reliably sourced material are we leaving out, or what material is in the article that you think shouldn't be there?" or "Let's try to address this one issue at a time -- is there any possible compromise on the Orwell Prize nomination?"
 * I appreciate that you're both trying your best, and don't mean to scold anyone, just to guide.
 * Thanks, TheronJ 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks theronj, it's a good point and well taken. I'll hold off on commenting on Felix's motives, and I hope he'll hold off on questioning mine.

It seems the first issue is resolved: there's a big majority on the discussion page against using the photo, though I'm happy to wait for further comments if you guys prefer.

Re: the Orwell Prize, my arguments are: wiki is not a paper encyclopedia; this is a clearly relevant and salient fact that tells you something interesting and important about the subject.

I have a suggestion though: I'm perfectly happy to go through these questions one by one, but it might be quicker if I indicated areas on which I would (reluctantly) be prepared to compromise, and Felix did the same. For example, I woudl reluctantly lose the TV sections, which I think are valuable and tell yuo a lot, if Felix compromises on his desire to cut the environmentalism/ nuclear weapons sections. Does that seem like a good idea? I'm open to suggestions of otehr compromises, or to hear one-by-one the case for and against, whichever you guys prefer... - DaveR


 * The Orwell Prize nomination;

I think the answer to these questions is no-I was keen on an awards section for awards he actually has won (young journo of the year etc) which seems rather more relevant-but that got a bit lost in the bunfight over this factoid.  Felix Felix talk 11:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the fact that Hari didn't win the Orwell prize important or relevant?
 * Does this factoid have permanence-ie will it be as interesting in 10 years time (and it's not interesting now)?
 * Is the Orwell prize important enough to warrant mention for a nomination? No other WP entry mentions nominations for it and even most winners don't have it mentioned in their articles.

Thanks for these questions, which help clarify your concerns.

(1) Why is the fact that Hari didn't win the Orwell prize important or relevant? - It's not. The fact he was the youngest person ever to make the shortlist is. It shows he was precociously successful and that his writing has been judged to be of high quality.

(2) Does this factoid have permanence-ie will it be as interesting in 10 years time (and it's not interesting now)? - I think it does. Being the youngest person ever to be nominated for a screenwriting Bafta (say) would be interesting, this is the political journalism equivalent.

(3) Is the Orwell prize important enough to warrant mention for a nomination? No other WP entry mentions nominations for it and even most winners don't have it mentioned in their articles. - That looks to me like a flaw in the other articles, rather than a flaw in this one. The Orwell Prize is pretty prestigious in journalism circles from what I can tell; several books that have won it, like 'One of Us' by Michael Collins, feature it on the cover, and several shortlisted books list it on the cover too.

I'm happy to carry on discussing this, but I think a more efficient way to deal with this would be if I indicated areas on which I would (reluctantly) be prepared to compromise, and Felix did the same. For example, I would reluctantly lose the TV sections, which I think are valuable and tell you a lot, if Felix compromises on his desire to cut the environmentalism/ nuclear weapons sections. Does that seem like a good idea?

Or we can carry on talking Orwell, and the other issues one by one, whichever you prefer. - DavidR

We're supposed to be trying to create a good article, not horsetrading paragraphs, so I think we ought to be properly discussing each issue (and try and remember to sign in, dave). From your replies above, you feel that the factoid that he was nominated for the Orwell prize (which you feel is prestigious) tells us that Hari is precociously talented. Well, we know his age and achievements (regular Independant column etc) from the article text. This factoid adds nothing new, except for the fact that he didn't win it, which is not notable.  Felix Felix talk 09:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through the issues one by one if that's what you prefer, although obviously this will be a very slow process.

You seem to have three concerns.

(1) Is the Orwell prize prestigious enough? As I say, many books list their nomination on teh cover; obviously prestige is hard to gauge, but this seems significant to me.

(2) He didn't actually win the award. Do you think being the youngest person to be nominated for a BAFTA or an Oscar for screenwriting would be worth including? Would you describe that merely as evidence the person failed to win, or is being the youngest person ever to be nominated in itself an achievement?

(3) This factoid adds nothing new. It tells us that a distinguished panel of judges considered him to be one of the five best political writers in Britain, which nothing else in the article indicates.

- DavidR

Dave, Thanks for your answers, this is a big improvement, I feel we can really start to engage and make some progress here. In reply All the best  Felix Felix talk 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)I think that's because they've won a prize, dave-books will put awards won on the cover, no matter what they are-because even entirely insignificant awards seem impressive to people who don't know what they are. There are many examples of this.
 * 2)If he had been nominated for an Oscar or a BAFTA, then it would be a little different, perhaps. But this was for an Orwell prize, a much lesser deal.
 * 3)It tells us that a panel of judges considered him to be one of the best  nominated entries . Again, he didn't win-if he did, it should go into the awards section, but he didn't.

I agree we're making progress, thanks for your comments.

This now seems to come down to point (2). You agree that being the youngest person ever to be nominated for a significant award is worthy of inclusion, so the debate comes down to whether the Orwell Prize is a significant award or not.

My understanding, as (like you, I think) a non-journalist, is that this is one of the big three writing awards in British political journalism, along with the Press Gazette and What the Papers Say awards. It is certainly highly publicised every year, with the winner featuring prominently on the BBC website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1256912.stm

This seems significant to me but obviously this is a subjective judgement to some degree. Theronj, can you think of some objective criterion whereby we can decide if this is significant or not?

Thanks again to both of you,

DaveR


 * I think it does come down to point 2). If Hari was nominated for an Oscar, I think that that would be worthy of a mention, and oscar nomination is regularly mentioned in articles on Oscar nominees. Not so for other awards, let alone for subsets of nominees (youngest etc..). My worry is that the article tends to become divergent and loose focus. It should stay on notable material and although Hari may be proud enough to display the factoid about his nomination for the Orwell at a young age on his web page, doesn't, in my view make it worthy of inclusion here.  Felix Felix talk 14:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work, guys. I will look for relevant standards.  Pending that, here are some other suggestions:
 * It might be possible to offer some compromises. For example, Felix, if David R were willing to work with you to develop some substantial cuts in the summaries of Hari's opinions and disputes, would you be more willing to include this nomination?  Alternately, since "youngest" is likely to become dated, would it be more acceptable to include something along the lines of "in 2005, Hari was 'short-listed' for the Orwell Prize, but did not win.
 * If you guys think more opinions would be helpful, we could take this back to the article pages, and/or start an RFC. **Alternately, if there were a trusted third party you both could agree to (not me), then you could agree to submit the issue to them for decision.  (We recently resolved a somewhat goofy fight about whether the Iraq War infobox should include a note that the Bush admin identifies the war as being part of the larger "war against terror" when Kirill Lokshin, the founder and most active member of the military history project, offered his opinion.  If there were a similar person you both respect from other journalism or bio pages, we could just turn it over to them for decision).
 * One other thing you might do is find other info about the Orwell Prize. As an American, I'm not familiar with the notoriety of the Orwell prize, and the Wiki page doesn't explain much.  If we track down some media coverage of the prize, maybe that will help assess its relevance to this article.  Thanks! TheronJ 15:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

TheronJ, I think there's a missing part to the end of your second para-(acceptable to..) could you let us know what it was? ta.  Felix Felix talk 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * D'oh! Done.  TheronJ 11:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I can't see a RfC changing my mind, and I'm fairly sure that dave would say the same. Who would you reckon as a third party?  Felix Felix talk 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy with an RfC, but if we can find a third party we both respect I'd be happy for that too. - DaveR

By the way, I hope that's not an indication that you won't abide by the RfC on the picture, Felix... that would be a real shame since we both agreed to it and there's been an overwhelming consensus against using it. - Dave


 * Why would you think that, dave? An ddon't forget to sign in..  Felix Felix talk 10:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, been away on holiday (in France, alas not anywhere glamorous).

I'm happy to keep digging on the Orwell Prize or looking for an editor acceptable to us both, but my concern is that, at the current rate of )perhaps) solving one issue every six weeks, the article won't be unfrozen until mid-2008! Given that some users have expressed impatience at how long the entry has been frozen already, that doesn't seem like a good option.

Here are the alternatives I can think of:

(1) Theronj has suggested we, in effect, trade on certain issues. I'm prepared to consider that so we can expedite the process.

(2) Why not put all the issues out for an RfC? You make your argument on each one, I'll make my argument on each one, and we trust the wider wiki user base to make the best judgement calls.

(3) We ask a third party to adjudicate on all the issues. Obviously we have to find a third party we both trust - Theronj, would you consider it? Or do you have any suggestions for neutral arbiters?

If you have any other suggestions Felix, I'm very happy to consider them too. I'm happy to continue at the current pace, but I don't think it's fair on the other wikipedians who have expressed a desire to add to the page to keep it frozen for over a year, but equally I don't think it should be unfrozen until felix and I have reached a reasonable compromise.

- DavidR

Wassup?  Felix Felix talk 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Felix, I was hoping you could express a view on the alternatives posited immediately above, or suggest a better one. Our current slow pace (for which I hold both of us responsible) is unfair to other wiki users who want to contribute to this entry - DaveR

I was waiting for Theron/Ron to email me, as s/he asked me for an email address. In the meantime, I'm happy for RfCs for points that need clarification, but you should remember dave that they're not votes deciding an issue, they are only comments, so the mediation has to settle issues between us two, and unless we're both happy, the issue hasn't been resolved. What were you thinking for point one, above?  Felix Felix talk 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and dave, really, you should sign in-if you're signed in and edit this page, then it will show on my watchlist, and it will speed things up, as it is, I never know when you post.  Felix Felix talk 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment worries me a bit Felix, because it implies that even the one issue I thought we had settled - the photo - it sounds like you are backtracking on. I hope I'm wrong.

Do you accept there is now a consensus against using the photo? (There is a difference between consensus and unanimity. A consensus is a big majority, which clearly exists in this case.)

Do you want to make some suggestions on issues you'd be prepared to trade on? Which of the questions do you feel least strongly about? I've suggested the options forward, do you want to make the enxt suggestions?

I'm keen to expedite this process because I'm aware it's unfair to other wiki users to drag it out like we both equally have. David r from meth productions 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, you might want to look at Consensus decision-making, and remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy. This mediation is about you and me reaching an agreement on how the article will go forward.I think that the RfC on the photo has been very interesting. What points were you interested in compromising on, dave?  Felix Felix talk 07:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that in the past three months of mediation, literally no issues have been resolved?

That suggests that mediation is not working and we need to find an alternative.

Since I have been the one making all the constructive suggestions, Felix why don't you suggest three areas in which you would be prepared to compromise? So far every single compromise has been suggested by me (accepted by you in one occasion, only for you to reverse your acceptance later on), so it would be helpful if you took a turn.

It would demonstrate good faith and show that this mediation process might work.

-DaveR86.143.158.38 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, dave, sorry for being a bit slow in replying, but you didn't sign in for your last post. I think that getting to mediation is a big leap forward, dave-especially as your tone has improved, but as I said above, we need to come to an agreement on how the article will move forward, and, as I said above as well, my preference would be to go through the points individually and settle each one in turn. However, if you feel that would be too slow, and want to 'horse trade'-by all means outline which issues you would like to compromise on.  Felix Felix talk 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Felix, if you really want to show a commitment to making mediation work, I think you should start by offerign some compromises, somethign I'm afraid you've neevr done.

Which 3 areas would you most be willing to compromise on? Then I will offer my three areas to compromise on, and so on.

As I have said before, I would be happy to go point-by-point if it was simply a matter of you and me, but it's unfair to the other people keen to ncontribute to the entry to leave it frozen for what would be, in effect, years, since after 3 months of a freeze, we have (according to you) resolved none of the points.

So... your compromise suggestions are...?David r from meth productions 10:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave, if you want to try horse trading, I think that you ought to make the first offer.  Felix Felix talk 11:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In what way have you shown your commitment to mediation, Felix? So far you have shown nothing but a demand to get your own way on everything, even when opinion is 8:2 against and most of the 8 are saying you want to breach wiki rules.

Can you name a single compromise you have ever made or offered? (please answer this question, it's not a rhetorical point.)

My concern with offering a compromise is that you will simply bank the thing I'm offering - "even you admit you don't want to keep X section" - and not keep to the reciprocal compromise.

The only compromise you have ever agreed to (after I suggested it), about the Enlightenment section, you then retracted a few weeks later.

Can you suggest a goodwill-building measure you can take to reassure me that you are in fact committed to mediation after all please?

Without this, I may have to appeal again for arbitration. I am told that since I have now tried the intermediate step for three months, without a single compromise being made, I am more likely to get agreement on this matter. David r from meth productions 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, I'm sorry that you feel this way, I'm very interested in moving the mediation forward, and I feel that I've demonstrated a good deal of good will, not least in terms of taking the personal attacks on me that you were making until recently.
 * You suggested horse trading to speed this process up, I have rejected nothing, and although I would prefer to go trough each issue in turn, I am prepared to discuss compromising on sections, if this will help. So what are you prepared to compromise on, dave? It's your suggestion, and I'm prepared to listen, so what's your offer? I find this insistence that I 'start the bidding' baffling-are you trying to end the mediation? I don't really see how I could 'bank the thing' that you're offering-the entire mediation is recorded here. Why not start talking, I'm all ears.  Felix Felix talk 18:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Felix, in Archive3, MuttGirl suggested the line "Hari has defended rationalism and what he sees as Enlightenment values, which he believes are under attack from several angles", and you replied, "Muttgirl's compromise would be acceptable at an impasse" - which this clearly was - and so we compromised and stopped discussing it.

If you aren't even going to abide by that compromise, then you are clearly breaching the spirit of mediation.

I am not "playing to the gallery" - what gallery? - I just want a serious mediation and serious compromise, as quickly as possible. You offered a compromise on one line; I offered a compromise on two. That's serious.

Offer me a bigger, serious compromise, and I'll match it. 86.129.127.225 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Horsetrading
Sadly, you have never offered a compromise, and the only one you ever agreed to you, proposed by me, you reneged on.

It is not that I especially want to horsetrade; I am trying to show some concern for otehr wikipedians, who we are cheating if we keep this entry frozen for years, which it will be at the current rate of you agreeing to no compromises even when the mood is 8:2 against you. (It would help if you could acknowledge this point about otehr wikipedians).

I hope you will start showing some commitment to mediation or I will have no choice but to go for arbitration.

I will reluctantly compromise on point (13) about television, if you compromise on point 10 about the enviro and nuclear passages. I think that's a very fair trade.

Hopefully you can agree to this and show some progress for the three months of total intransigence so far. David r from meth productions 09:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 09:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to compromise on the nomination for the Orwell prize (nomination only, as Theron sugessted above), and the passage about the Enlightenment-as long as it's short.
 * I remain against the inclusion of the passages on his bland articles on the environment and nuclear power, however.I don't mind a short sentence describing his position, but only that-and no spurious criticism, no matter how great prospect agazine thinks the authors are.
 * In short, I offer;


 * 1) The Orwell nomination (something like "in 2005, Hari was 'short-listed' for the Orwell Prize, but did not win"-as per Theron)
 * 2) A short descriptive sentence or two regarding his position on The Enlightenment.
 * In return for;

I don't know what you mean by "3 months of total intransigence", dave-I'd hoped that you were going to make an effort in this mediation (that you requested), and was delighted when you finally started-don't let everyone down now.  Felix Felix talk 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A short descriptive sentence on his position on nuclear power and the environment (something like "he supports nuclear disarmanent and action to stop climate change")
 * 2) The final para about women's rights goes completely, as does the para about class (ie the one about television programs)

I am delighted you are finally talking about making compromises for the first time ever.

His views about the environment and nuclear weapons are at the core of his politics, and the subjects he most frequently returns to. You may think they are bland, but I'm sure you can see that is POV, and he actually takes a position that - as the figures you have provided yourself show - are extremely controversial. Criticisms from some of the most high-profile intellectuals in the world are not "spurious"; again this is your POV. I can't compromise on that.

I can compromise on the second of your points: let's trade the Orwell Prize nomination (although not an added statement he didn't win; that's obvious, it's why we say a nomination not a victory) and a passage describing his views the Enlightenment (which you have already agreed to once, so I don't consider it an advance) in exchange for removing his views about Little Britain and Coronation Street. This is not pleasant for me, since I think those views are valuable and important, but such is the nature of compromise. Deal? David r from meth productions 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * His views about the environment and nuclear weapons are at the core of his politics, and the subjects he most frequently returns to. You may think they are bland, but I'm sure you can see that is POV, and he actually takes a position that - as the figures you have provided yourself show - are extremely controversial. Criticisms from some of the most high-profile intellectuals in the world are not "spurious"; again this is your POV. I can't compromise on that. Me neither-we could thus put this to one side, and return to it later.
 * So both the paras about class and women go-that's paras 6 and 8 in the 'domestic politics section, in return for a "he was nominated for the Orwell prize in 2005" in the awards section. If you're OK with that, it's settled, and we can move on. I'm glad to see you making an effort again, dave!  Felix Felix talk 14:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Felix, you say, "So both the paras about class and women go-that's paras 6 and 8 in the 'domestic politics section, in return for a "he was nominated for the Orwell prize in 2005" in the awards section." Have you read what I actually wrote?

If you read it, you'll see I suggested that the lines about Little Britain and Coronation Street go (with a reference to his wider views on class staying), in return for line about the Orwell prize staying and you keeping to the compromise you made months ago about the Enlightenment passage. (If you are going to renege on that compromise already, how can I trust any other compromise you make? How could mediation possibly work?)

Please respond to what I write, rather than fantasies! David r from meth productions 10:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you look at what I wrote the time before, dave, you'll see that's what I suggested, which was why I thought that you had agreed to it. You'll have to offer something a bit more substantail than just the passage on TV programs, dave. What else have you got, or are you trying to make this mediation fail?  Felix Felix talk 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, and responded. All I'm asking is you do the same. It's not hard to read a few sentences, after all!

You are offering to compromise on one line: about the Orwell prize. I am offering in return to compromise on two lines: those on Little Britain, and Coronation Street. That's pretty generous and I was doing it so we could at least have one thing to show for three months of mediation.

(I don't consider the offer on the Enlightenment to be part of the bargaining, since you have already agreed to that; if you start retarcting compromises before we even begin, how can this process ever work?)

In response to your one-line offering, I'm generously conceding two lines. Far from trying to end the mediation, I'm trying to end your three months of refusing every conceivable compromise. So do you want to accept this compromise as a sign of good faith? David r from meth productions 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's one reading, dave, I'd consider it a minor concession for two big compromises from me, namely the Enlightenment passage (not conceded by me previously) and the Orwell prize. You have offered only the most minor of concessions (Hari's taste in television programs..). As, you know, dave, my concern is that the article is over long, makes too much use of the subject's website (a self published source) and is uncritical. I've offered you two passages to compromise, I can offer others, all you have offered is part of a paragraph about what Hari likes to watch on telly. The article needs much more cleaning than this, and I'm a bit worried that by making cursory gestures like this, you're not trying with this mediation. I have the strong impression that you're playing to the gallery whilst obstructing the mediation in an effort to take this to adjudication. I hope I'm wrong, because that would mean that this has all been a total waste of time, not just mine, but also for Theron, who was bought into this mediation process at your request. I'm not frightened of an adjudication process, dave-although I think it would be very slow in coming-if it ever did, so we might as well get used to the idea that the only way to move forward with the article is to work it out between ourselves, as the only two editors with a specific interest in the article. Make me a serious offer, dave-and show that you mean business, so we can get this tedious bunfight over.  Felix Felix talk 09:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Felix, in Archive3, MuttGirl suggested the line "Hari has defended rationalism and what he sees as Enlightenment values, which he believes are under attack from several angles", and you replied, "Muttgirl's compromise would be acceptable at an impasse" - which this clearly was - and so we compromised and stopped discussing it.

If you aren't even going to abide by that compromise, then you are clearly breaching the spirit of mediation before it even gets going, and I can't trust a thing you say.

I am not "playing to the gallery" - what gallery? - I just want a serious mediation and serious compromise, as quickly as possible. You offered a compromise on one line; I offered a compromise on two. That's serious.

Offer me a bigger, serious compromise, and I'll match it. David r from meth productions 12:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dave, we're in mediation now, and, as you've recently pointed out we've been in it for 3 months, with no progress. 'Playing to the Gallery' is an idiomatic expression that I'm sure an educated chap like yourself has heard before, dave. I've agreed to nothing about the Enlightenment passage in this mediation, dave, so I don't really see how I can have breached the spirit of it. Ok, for a compromise, how about not only the enlightenment passage and the Orwell prize nomination, but all the other nominations you were keen on (Gay secularist of the year etc) and the picture? How about cutting the 'european social democrat'  bit altogether, if you're worried about it? I'm ammenable to all suggestions as long as the article is substantially and radically shortened, loosing the quotes preferably.  Felix Felix  talk 18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You really should read back over the archive, Felix - you clearly agreed to the Enlightenment passage.

You want a substantially shorter entry; I have already compromised by accepting the current entry, which is far, far shorter than the one I drafted and wish to see. This is going to be a serious problem in reaching an agreement without outside intervention, but I will do my best.

I appreciate that you have now offered something substantial in offering all the award nominations. While I think they're worthwhite and informative for readers, I'm afraid I don't feel incredibly strongly about them, other than the Orwell, Prize, relative to the other issues at stake. The European social democrat aspect, along with the nukes and environmentalism, are the things I feel most strongly about, and are most essential for an accurate entry about Hari.

So how about this compromise:

(a) You get your way on removing the women's rights section, the TV programmes sections, the discussion of class, Kamm's criticisms, the Che criticisms, and all award mentions except the Orwell prize.

In return, you agree to:

(b) we keep the environmentalism and nuclear weapons passages (with criticisms by Lomborg and Starkey), and add a very small half-line to the social democrat description as outlined above.

That's a pretty generous offer, I think - giving you 6 things you want in return for 3 things I want. It would also make the entry substantially shorter, which is a compromise on top of a compromise since I am already unhappy about how drastically you have shortened the entry even without these cuts.

Deal?

David r from meth productions 01:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done.  Felix Felix talk 16:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, I appreciate that Felix. We've made real progress, and I apologise for suggesting you weren't taking the mediation seriously - this shows you are. Let's tell Theronj so he can put the changes through.

The remaining issues are:

1. Which photo(s) should be included (link to photos?). (The photo Felix wishes to be used is not in fact of Hari, however).

2. Whether Medialens should be quoted, while simultaneously cutting out other critics, and leaving out Hari's response to Medialens and the salient opinion poll data

3. Whether Hari's 2006 nominations as Secularist of the Year and Gay Journalist of the Year should be included (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

I'll compromise on point 3 if you compromise on point 2 - which leaves us only with the photo dispute.

Deal on that too? Then we're almost finished.

David r from meth productions 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry dave, when you said "all award mentions except the Orwell prize" you were referring to other nominations. Do you want the other nominations or not? I'm not too fussed, as long as it's kept short, although franky the addition of these two reads a little desperately to my mind. However, point two won't do in the form you're suggesting. Hari's support for the invasion was prominent and should get some serious airing here, he retracted, unlike the rest of the 'cruise missile left' which is certainly to his credit. Once again, we don't have to flog this to death, and I'm most certainly in favour of keeping it short and to the point. If you have a problem with using Medialens as critics, do you want to suggest someone else? I think they're a good choice, even though I know you don't like them dave, as they had a public exchange of open letters with him on the very subject-thus with one link we could give an entire to and fro from both sides without clogging the article. Off the cuff I can't find one link that opens the whole thread, but the relevant to and fro articles are here   . Unless I've missed something, apart from the Flickr photo, we have none which are non-copy vio do we? If we find one, fine-in the spirit of compromise, I've conceeded the Flickr picture of Hari.  Felix Felix  talk 16:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I mean losing mention of all nominations except the Orwell Prize if you agree to the compromise.

How about this then (and I'm really stetching to make a compromise against my desires here) - we lose the nominations, in return for a line that says 'The media monitoring group Medialens, amongst others like Noam Chomsky, disputed Hari's original position", with a link to the Medialens article. It's short, it includes the link, and in return you get to cut the nominations.

Deal?

PS I also give you real credit for conceding on the photo, and appreciate that. David r from meth productions 22:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, What we have at the moment is;

"Johann Hari was a prominent advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many people on the left, most notably Noam Chomsky, believe Hari's initial support for the invasion of Iraq, after visiting Saddam's Iraq, contradicts his self-description as a left-winger. Hari always opposed the WMD rationale for war and said "the Bush administration is very obviously not doing this for the right reasons, to say the least"; but he believed – on the basis of opinion polls – that "a majority of Iraqis would rather takes their chances with a horrible American occupation than with the living hell of Saddam and his sons for generations to come."

He later said his initial support of the invasion had been a "terrible mistake", writing, "The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it's just the Bush administration screwed it up. ... The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster."

How about;


 * "He was a prominent supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which he was criticised by many in the anti-war movement, including the media monitoring group Medialens, who had a lengthy public correspondance with Hari about this [link]. However, he later recanted his position[link]. (perhaps with ...as the only member of the liberal supporters of the war to do so?)"

 Felix Felix talk 16:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Felix - sorry it's taken a while to reply, I have the flu or really bad hayfever or something.

I think that's too drastic a cut. How about this:

"Johann Hari was a prominent advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Some people on the left, most notably Noam Chomsky and the media monitoring group Medialens with whom he had a lengthy public exchange on the subject[link], believe Hari's initial support for the invasion of Iraq, after visiting Saddam's Iraq, contradicts his self-description as a left-winger. Hari always opposed the WMD rationale for war and said "the Bush administration is very obviously not doing this for the right reasons, to say the least"; but he believed – on the basis of opinion polls – that "a majority of Iraqis would rather takes their chances with a horrible American occupation than with the living hell of Saddam and his sons for generations to come."

He later said his initial support of the invasion had been a "terrible mistake", writing, "The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it's just the Bush administration screwed it up. ... The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster."

I think the quotes are absolutely essential, not least pointing out that he always severely criticised the Bush administration, but I'm happy to negotiate about where we put the Medialens reference (which, remember, is already a big compromise for me) and how we word it.

I'm also unhappy that the second quote has itself been trimmed in a way that slightly distorts the sense of it. It sounds from this excerpt like he is offering the "I still support the pricniple" argument, when actually in context he was criticising it:

"The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But as one anti-war friend snapped at me when I mooted this argument, “Yeah, who would ever have thought that supporting George Bush in the illegal invasion of an Arab country would go wrong?” She’s right: the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way. (Expecting Tony Blair to use his influence was, it is now clear, a delusion, as he refuses to even frontally condemn the American torture camp at Guantanomo Bay).

The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster."

Conscious of your desire for a shorter article, I think it's really important the quote includes this at a minimum though I'd like the full passage:

"The lamest defence I could offer – one used by many supporters of the war as they slam into reverse gear – is that I still support the principle of invasion, it’s just the Bush administration screwed it up. But... the truth is that there was no pure Platonic ideal of The Perfect Invasion to support, no abstract idea we lent our names to. There was only Bush, with his cluster bombs, depleted uranium, IMF-ed up economic model, bogus rationale and unmistakable stench of petrol, offering his war, his way... The evidence should have been clear to me all along: the Bush administration would produce disaster."

I hope we can agree on this final point, we are so near the finishing line!

Best wishes,

A sickly DavidDavid r from meth productions 20:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave,

Fair enough, but I think that we can get a fair sense of what you want with a shorter para.I don't think that Chomsky has said anything about Hari's support of the war not making him a left winger, and the whole argument about the 'pro-war' left is a labyrinthine one, best avoided unless we want to end up in an unreadable charge and counter-charge passage. Overall, I think your para is too pro-Hari, and it would broadly be better if we kept it factual with links going to the meat of the matter.

So how about; "He was a prominent liberal supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for which he was criticised by many in the anti-war movement, including the media monitoring group Medialens, who had a lengthy public correspondance with Hari about this [link]. However, he later withdrew his support, describing it as a 'terrible mistake'[link], he is notable for being the only liberal supporter of the war to do so."

I think the quotes should stay out, the links provide all the content. Antiwar movement is more accurate than 'some on the left', and Hari's reasons for supporting the war are supplied in the links. Indeed humanitarian grounds were not only cited by all the 'pro-war left' but by the Washington neocons too, supplying this in the text isn't really illuminating, and would warrant textual countercharges in my view, which would make the whole para messy and look bad.

As you know, dave, left to my own devices, I'd have a much more critical, and longer, more prominent passage about Hari's support for the war, which in my view is his darkest hour. If we keep it brief and factual without quotes, I think we'll be able to sort something out that we can both be fairly happy with.

If you have no cough and no temperature, try antihistamines, which you can get from Boots, over the counter, I think.

 Felix Felix talk 06:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think it's true that he's the only liberal supporter to recant: Norman Geras, David Aaronovitch, Petrer Beinart and others have siad they were wrong too.

I think it's really, really important thave a quote but I'm afraid I'm too sick to think properly... will have a think and get back to you, thanks for the Boots tip.... 81.158.54.162 10:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have Aaronovitch and Geras recanted? I'd be interested to see the relevant articles if you have links, dave.  Felix Felix talk 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Status?
What is the status of this case? Do you need another mediator or can I close the case? --Medcabemail 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Closing. Leave a note on my talk page if it needs to be reopened.  --McClerk 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I tell you what - I bet FelixFelix is feeling heartily vindicated. No wonder he got so infuriated... Ned-kogar (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed 82.1.93.50 (talk)