Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Introduction bloat

Do we really need to know that Hari was rated 83rd most important left winger in 2009 by the Torygraph? And is the dutch magazine Winq notable in any way? And do we need any of this stuff in the intro (or indeed the article) at all? It's quickly turning into a mess again, or no real reason that I can see. If no-one objects, I'll trim this pointless filler out in a day or so.FelixFelix ^talk 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The Apology

- - Johann has apologised here - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html

- - - You'll notice some things we need to be very, very careful about

- - -

1. He admits to creating a Wikipedia account for taking out, and putting in, material about specific, named people

-

1. He concedes to making additions to his articles without citations

-

1. He offers to send back his Orwell Prize

- - - This will need to be added to the article BUT we need to remember WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POV more than ever doktorb _words^deeds 17:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a significant point in the career of a prominent journalist, much more than news. What is more important is that the section I have labelled 'professional crisis' now dwarfs the rest of Hari's decade long career, and should not do so. Undue weight is surely an issue here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Cross above. Given the damage Johann Hari has caused to Wikipedia, it's understandable that a lot of editors here bear a grudge against him and want this article to resemble a character assassination. But that would be a mistake. I think it's worth remembering that before this year's 'Professional crisis', he was one of the most widely admired young journalists in Britain, particularly among the left-wing. The various awards he's received over the years, including of course the Orwell Prize, are testament to that; and the fact that his reputation has since collapsed doesn't undo the fact that it was once quite high among many. At the moment, this article looks to me almost like historical revisionism, trying to make Hari look like a controversial writer from the start about whom no one ever had anything good to say. A more honest article would give proper weight to the good reputation he built for his writing over the years, and the praise and accolades he received, before explaining why he suddenly lost it all. Robofish (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"A more honest article would give proper weight to the good reputation he built for his writing over the years, and the praise and accolades he received, before explaining why he suddenly lost it all." - Well, I'd agree, except it's going to be a real muddle trying to clarify how much of Hari's writing was actually his, since the Independent's investigation is to be kept secret and Hari himself seems to be reacting rather cagily.Yonmei (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As an afterthought, it's rather ironic that Hari, who has serially violated WP:BLP in editing other people's articles, now has an article that depicts him in an extremely negative light himself. I'm sure many people like it that way and consider it 'poetic justice', but as I just explained I think we can do better. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the most significant incident in Johann Hari's career to date. The issue of his use of Wikipedia as a tool to attack others is relatively minor - ugly behaviour but not worth dwelling on. That Hari plagiarised other material and published it as his own is a big deal: given the report on his behaviour is not to be made public, are we ever to know which bits and pieces of his past journalism is actually his own honest reporting? Hari's admitted dishonesty colours his whole past career.

Hopefully, he'll do better in future, and there will be more to write about, and write about more positively. Let's not be in a hurry to get rid of any material. Hari will not be returning to work as a journalist till 2012: let's see what he does with his future career. Yonmei (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that this ("his use of wikipedia as a tool to attack others is relatively minor") is correct. To escape the consequences of his behaviour and writing, he used a range of tools, including Wikipedia, Amazon reviews, at least one lawsuit (to have the following taken off the internet: http://bp1.blogger.com/_MUXJsZn4hVY/Rq8qeLC4R8I/AAAAAAAAAHc/2OBvYLhHTqg/s1600-h/hp.jpg), and, er, blocking people, such as Yonmei, who got very upset about it, on Twitter. Mk270 (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hari as a journalist wrote extensively about many important topics: unless he or his editors are to make clear to us exactly which parts of his work are his own and which were plagiarised, none of his previous work can be considered reliable. That is a really important issue.

Set against that, I frankly see any issues with his misediting of Wikipedia under pseudonym(s) to be really very minor: it's all personal journalistic feuds, very wrong and juvenile behaviour on Hari's part, but with limited damage. Yonmei (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But nevertheless, a - rather fascinating - minor chapter in Wikipedia sockpuppetry history - such as when David R says he can't be Hari, citing, quite convincingly, where he has disagreed with him(self). Quite Whitmanesque. With these talents, I would not be surprised, on the model of former journalist Bernard Shaw, we could well see Mr Hari's future career path as a dramatist. Straw Cat (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei: the information is still quite lengthy and rambling - it does dwarf the rest of the article unduely. It needs to be tightened. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article, he makes no explicit statement of which accounts he used. Is it completely unambiguous? With one of the accounts previously alleged to be his, when I investigated the possible COI, replied that it was not him but a close friend, I had no reason to doubt this but am now unsure of where we stand with regard to the "official" situation on his named sockpuppets. If this is not the right place to discuss the matter, perhaps someone can link to a better place. If it has been done and dusted and I can think about other things, all the better. Thanks Fæ (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but someone is certain to restore 'David r...' if it is removed, even though it is still strictly synthesis for that user to be mentioned in the article except as an accusation. Philip Cross (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But this blog entry by David Allan Green over at the New Statesman is evidence. Philip Cross (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia sockpuppetry belongs in the article, but no way is it of such import to who Johann Hari is as to belong in the intro. I've moved it to a relevant section in the article body - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get too carried away in the other direction. Many erstwhile supporters have said (as in the comments to this http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/09/hari-rose-wikipedia-admitted) they could forgive him the plagiarism etc, but the deceit revealed by the sockpuppetry was too much.Straw Cat (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed "professional crisis" to "professional disgrace". The reason being that Hari has admitted misconduct which by its very nature is dishonest. Plagiarism itself is dishonest. Hari went further: finessing his texts with little phrases of color, showing how mindfully he carried out the deceptions. Dishonesty by a journalist has no public interest justifications, and is an absolute wrong. His reputation is unquestionably severely tarnished. Although he and his supporters may feel that this all merely involves a little awkwardness, proven dishonesty by a journalist is unquestionably his or her professional disgrace. Bluehotel (talk) 07:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed the word back to "crisis" - I don't think we're yet at the end of it, and I think "disgrace" implies a final judgement inappropriate in an ongoing Wikipedia article. Also, removed rather emotional edits from the initial summary of the facts,. Yonmei (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to be a little harsh here, for which I apologise, but this is a BLP so we must get it right. The section is shoddy; both in writing and construction. For example The first accusation of plagiarism was made by a small left-wing blog appears to be sourced to that small left-wing blog. This is bad sourcing (per WP:PRIMARY and [{WP:OR]]). A lot of the content seems dependant on blog-ish sources, and it would be better to scap those in favour of secondary/independent summary sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The small left-wing blog cited did not merely accuse Johann Hari of plagiarism. The author(s) had read Negri on Negri in the English translation and were sufficiently familiar with the book that they could recognise where Johann Hari had simply lifted quotes from the book and republished them as if spoken to him by Negri in his interview. The blog is cited because they then illustrated this by extensively quoting from the Hari interview and from the book: in effect, a photograph of a plagiarist at work. Brian Whelan, editor of Yahoo!Ireland, did much the same with the illustrative quotes from Gideon Levy's published work compared with Johann Hari's interview with him. I'm unclear why you think linking to this is "shoddy": it seems to me no more shoddy than linking to a photograph. Yonmei (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All other blogs cited are, I think without exception, published as part of an edited publication - the New Statesman, the Telegraph, the Spectator, and therefore fall within Wikipedia's normal standards of online sources. Yonmei (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot to log in. Also, to add that I am not entirely sure what other sources currently exist. I was in hopes that we would be able to make use of the investigation report as a source, but that isn't to be made publicly available. Most of the actual reporting of events happened, as far as I can tell and obviously I'm open to correction, via blogs on edited publications - to eliminate all of that would leave the article uncited, to eliminate all information that wasn't cited would merely mean that people aware of the issue would come in and start adding material again. Please be bold and improve the writing and construction - and the sources too, if you can. Yonmei (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The blog was being used to support the content (paraphrased) "Hari was accused of plagiarism by blog X on Y date" - a detail the blog does not actually source :) My main concern is "first". We also do much the same with the Yahoo content that followed it; my suggestion is to look for summary sources with which to support a timeline. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The blog however does actually source the plagiarism, and very thoroughly, using scans from Negri on Negri to show exactly where Hari took his quotes from. I don't have a problem not using the word "first". Yonmei (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, I have not found any admission of "plagiarism" per se. Did you find one? Collect (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you read source material about what constitutes plagiarism and acquaint yourself with the source material before making further comments or editing the bio page. Yonmei (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Guardian

I just read the latest article in the Guardian - had no idea he was editing at Wikipedia! Anyway, the Guardian has collected coverage on him, so please add this template to the External links:

• Johann Hari/Archive 5 collected news and commentary at The Guardian

There's also a collection of Telegraph blogs here which you might want to add. I didn't know about Cristina Odone, either. Crikey. 99.50.188.221 (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Fae The Guardian article linked above has a statement from the Independent which specifically says he admits to using the 'David Rose' identity on WP to make changes to his own and others articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 11:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had missed it. It makes me very sad to read it. Fæ (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be best not to shoot from the hip too much. Wikipedia's own policies, much cited in discussions on this page and others, have exacerbated the problem by enabling sockpuppetry: it was permitted for a sockpuppet to go through an adjudication about the puppeteer's own page! Given that the matter may yet end up with criminal investigations and civil lawsuits, editors should adopt a more critical attitude to these policies. Mk270 (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's odd, I'll grant you. The lying to get ahead professionally one can at least understand whilst still disapproving, but some of the David R stuff is genuinely bonkers. I honestly don't know how they think he can stay on. I hear from journalist friends there's more to come...we shall see. BearAllen (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is more to come. Two 'big hits', I hear - --82.41.20.82 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Odone's response to the investigation

Apologies if I'm putting this message in the wrong place. The main Wiki entry for Hari includes this: "Cristina Odone, blogging for the Telegraph was disappointed by the investigation. She has received no apology from The Independent or from Hari himself for his malicious editing of her Wikipedia article, and neither have the other victims". Her actual complaint (see the article cited in the footnote) is that she received no "personal" apology. Hari's public apology said, regarding the victims of his Wikipedia edits: "I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally."

Peeve7 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Peeve7

Added "direct" for clarity. The heading is mine. Philip Cross (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal names of those whom Hari has potentially defamed were missing from the latest Independent 'apology', while those he supported where present. To me that looks like something done for legal reasons. There may be a lot more to come on this aspect, but nothing yet reportable on WP. Mattwardman (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Several of the journalists who've been pursuing this, such as David Allen Green and some at the Tele, have been strongly hinting there's is rather more to come, of a fairly devastating nature, from the David Rose stuff. Apparently the aid worker from the CAR story is none too pleased, either, and will be releasing more information. Like most cover-ups, the attitude of the Indie seems to be storing up more trouble than a clean-slate would have done. BearAllen (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sept 15

[1] makes absolutely no use of the word "plagiarism." Collect (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now tried to leave a message twice on your Talk page and got the same database error both times, but in summary: if you aren't acquainted with the facts about Johann Hari, I do suggest you go read the source material - there's a lot of it - before starting to edit the bio page. Throughout this Hari has consistently refused to use the word plagiarism to describe his plagiarising other people's work: but he has done so, he admits that he has done so, and this is plagiarism. Yonmei (talk)

And one can not apologize for "plagiarism" when one steadfastly avoids the word. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please try to stick to one location to have this discussion? Thanks. Yonmei (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep - started on your UT page. You then added a section on my UT page. The rest is responses. Cheers - the existence of multiple sections is not my doing. And you have left multiple posts on my UT page -- try looking at your spoor <g>. Collect (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You are interpolating personal surmise for that the sources actually say. Hari never admitted to "plagiarism" so it is difficult to say he apologized for "plagiarism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at or trying to accomplish. Hari has steadily refused to use the word plagiarism to describe his publishing other people's words under his own name. But he has now apologised for taking other people's work and using it as if it was his own. None of this is personal surmise, it's facts backed up by citations, which I do suggest you read. Are you suggesting that instead of the word plagiarism we should use Hari's circumlocutions? I'm resistant to that, for two reasons: they will tend to make the article even longer, and they will not be as immediately clear and unstandable as the word plagiarism. I say we use the word everyone understands that clearly describes what Hari did, since he's now acknowledged that he did it. Yonmei (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the article should accurately explain what Hari did, which was to pretend that things said to other journalists (which Hari said he used because the form in which they were said was clearer than what was said to him) were said to him. Clearly that's misrepresentation, but whether it is plagiarism is moot. This article is, after all, a WP:BLP and should therefore be written conservatively.     ←   ZScarpia   15:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is defined as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions". That's what Hari did. It's really not open to debate - he admits he did that. I agree the article should try to explain exactly what Hari did, but I don't see why writing the article conservatively means avoiding using the word plagiarism. Yonmei (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've moved everyone's comments to the correct section, I don't care if this fits wikipedia etiquette or not. OhINeedANameNow (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That definition of plagiarism doesn't fully describe what Hari did. He didn't "wrongfully appropriate" another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" as such. Each of the quotes - has anyone said any different? - are authentic quotes of the author concerned. What Hari did was falsely represent these quotes as being elicited by himself. This is an injury to the original interviewer (and perhaps constitutes copywrite infringement), and also to the bond of trust between writer and reader. But is this plagiarism? Perhaps, but its a nebulous and borderline case. There is clearly "wrongful appropriation" of some sort going on, but I agree that Wikipedia should be conservative here. Zafio (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "wrongfully appropriate" another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" as such. Yes, he did. Hari took material copyrighted to another author, and passed it off as material copyrighted to him: he did this in at least two ways, either wrongfully appropriating material written by the interviewee and passing it off as an original quote elicited in an interview with himself, and he also wrongfully appropriated material from interviewees conducted by other journalists, and passed this off as an original quote elicited in an interview with himself. Yonmei (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The version of the article written prior to Hari's admission that he had "wrongfully appropriated" other author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" outlined in excruciating detail exactly how Hari had plagiarised material in a range of interviews, with citations and quotes. This was felt to be too long, and I agreed and condensed it. Perhaps we should consider a subpage specifically outlining the details of Johann Hari's plagiarism over the course of his journalistic career. Yonmei (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with that version of the article, and have a full understanding of the extent of Hari's blatant misuse of copyright material. In fact, I scarcely see how your characterisation of what he has done, by his own admission, differs from mine (you're right to add, of course, that he often stole directly from the author in questions work, as well as from interviews) . The question here is simply about whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to describe Hari's actions explicitly as "plagiarism" (I think its entirely appropriate to say that many people consider it a form of plagiarism - I think it is, of a kind). The definition in the Wikipedia article plagiarism doesn't settle the matter of course. However, the article does say that plagiarism should not be confused with copyright infringement. While I think its clear there was some kind of "wrongful appropriation", this wasn't of an author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" - the quotes themselves were not misattributed, merely their source. This probably is "plagiarism" in my view. But several editors here argue that it is not a clear cut case (or that Hari hasn't admitted to it explicitly, which is undoubtedly true), and so is in Wikipedia terms an unverified claim. As Zscarpia says, the question is "moot". As for suggesting a subpage, this won't help to clarify the differences of opinion expressed here. Zafio (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Several editors argue that Hari has not admitted to plagiarism, which is a fair point. Literally the only source I know of that seriously and consistently argues that Hari's misappropriation of other people's work was not plagiarism is, unsurprisingly, Johann Hari himself. And you, of course. Yonmei (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally think its plagiarism, as I've said. In my recent edit of the lead, I didn't remove the word plagiarism, but did remove the kind of mealy-mouthed apologetic language that I think you're complaining about, replacing it with the word "misconduct" - without qualifying the accusations of plagiarism in any way. But I think there's sufficient doubt about this issue to phrase this in a conservative and cautious way in the overall context of the article. Collect and Zscarpia agree with me.Zafio (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, Zscarpia explitly says that whether Hari's action was misrepresentation or plagiarism is "moot". The point is he's been caught and admitted wrongdoing. And got off far too lightly in my view. Wikipedia aside, I'd like to see a lot more transparency from the Independent and the Orwell Prize about the CAR article. Dishonest reporting of that kind would be exponentially more morally serious. 18:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafio (talk • contribs)

I've started a new section to discuss whether we should call the Plagiarism section anything but Plagiarism. Seems more productive than hashing it out on the JH page itself.Yonmei (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I've just posted a reply there, with a suggested compromise. I hope you see this as productive and positive. Zafio (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Orwell Prize

The introductory passage to "Professional Crisis" suggests that he was stripped of the prize, in fact he chose to return it. I would fix it myself but I don't seem to have an edit button. OhINeedANameNow (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the Orwell Prize had reached but not announced a decision on whether to allow Johann to keep his prize, we only have speculation in regards to what their decision was. OhINeedANameNow (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a fix. The Orwell Prize committee were requested to delay their formal announcement until the Independent's investigation was over so that Hari could make further representations to them - preliminary reports in a few newspapers stated that the committee had decided to withdraw the prize, and it's certainly hard to see why Hari would have needed to make further representations if their decision had been that he should keep it. As soon as the investigation was over, Hari returned the Orwell Prize to the committee by courier, so technically he did withdraw the Prize, but it would not be accurate to say he did so by choice. This is all covered in the body of the article. Yonmei (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay I've cleaned this up, if anyone else wants to add to this discussion then go ahead. For reference I think Yonmei is right and I was wrong. OhINeedANameNow (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See http://theorwellprize.co.uk/news/the-orwell-prize-and-johann-hari/, 27 Sep 2011: "The Council can confirm that, subject to any further representations by Hari, the Orwell Prize for Journalism 2008 would have been vacated in any case."

Plagiarism

Early in the timeline of Hari being accused of plagiarism, several journalists argued that "improving" quotes was not really plagiarism. I know of none that continued to dispute the charges of plagiarism after 1 July 2011, when it had become clear (the interview quote taken from Matthew Todd/Attitude, the quotes from Malalai Joya's book, etc) that Hari had gone a long way beyond "improvement" into outright theft. Does anyone have a source since 1 July 2011 (aside from Johann Hari himself) that disputes that what Johann Hari was doing was plagiarism? If not, can we agree to leave the first heading of the "Professional Crisis" section in place as Plagiarism? I really don't want to start an edit war, but the fact is, that I know of no published source that refers to what Johann Hari did as anything else BUT plagiarism. Yonmei (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

He is not accused of "improving" quotes, but of using accurate quotes from the same person Collect (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

He was said to be merely "improving" quotes, by his early defenders.Yonmei (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

in lieu of the quote from the physical interview. "Plagiarism" is using another's words and acting like they were one's own words. Collect (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what he did. There is a defense called "fair use", but to invoke that, the quotes taken and used as if they were his own, had to be properly attributed, and they were not.Yonmei (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hari may be a horrid journalist, but "plagiarism" as used in law and in English does not fit his misdeeds. Nor does he admit to "plagiarism." Now you appear to WP:KNOW that it "must be plagiarism" but that is not a valid basis for edits on a Wikipedia article.Collect (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. All the sources I have found, of every description, since the beginning of July 2011, except those from Johann Hari himself, say that what Johann Hari did was plagiarism. Now you appear to WP:KNOW that it wasn't plagiarism, so please, cite your sources that say it wasn't! Yonmei (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Note definitions using "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! I look forward to your list of sources that say what Johann Hari did was not plagiarism. Yonmei (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken up your challenge Yonmei, and I have found 2 sources that argues it wasn't plagiarism. Peter Preston in the Guardian here http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/03/johann-hari-quotes-honesty-foolish, and Deborah Orr on Newsnight here (the last shouldn't be so surprising, as she is a friend and former colleague). But I don't think my cursory search constitutes a rebuttal of your empirical test: the vast majority of articles written after July 1 on this subject do suggest it is plagiarism. The question is how Wikipedia balances out the overwhelming avalanche of accusations of plagiarism, against the language Hari himself has used in his apology. Zafio (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A second question is whether Hari's misconduct actually does constitute a classic definition of plagiarism. I think there are some doubts that it does: its a very odd kind of plagiarism indeed. At a push, a compromise would be to name that section "Accusations of Plagiarism". Would you agree to that given what several editor's have suggested to you here? Nevertheless, I'm personally happy to leave your last edit as it is, on the grounds of your test. In the eyes of the overwhelming majority of coverage, this is a plagiarism issue. No need for an edit war, I simply think the article needs to broach this subject in a responsible way, because Hari really hasn't admitted to the p word, nor have the details of the independent's enquiry been revealed (a lack of transparency I find regrettable).Zafio (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is plagiarism. I think it's perfectly responsible to say so, and to include for full accuracy Hari's refusal as yet to admit that his theft of other people's work and presenting it as his own is plagiarism (perhaps that journalism-ethics course he's going on will teach him better!)

For example, Hari took a quote (word-for-word) which interviewer Matthew Todd had got from rugby-player Gareth Thomas, in an interview published in Attitude. Copyright for that published article belonged to either Matthew Todd or to Attitude: Hari did not attribute the quote he took to either the writer or to the magazine, but simply republished it as if it had been said as part of Hari's interview with Gareth Thomas.

And of course the specific example which began the professional crisis was of Hari having taken verbatim quotes from Negri on Negri: in conversation with Anne Dufourmentelle, first published in 2002 as Du retour : abécédaire biopolitique. Hari had used the English text from the 2003 translation by Malcolm DeBevoise but had presented the quotes from the work authored by Anne Dufourmentelle and Negri, translated by DeBevoise into English, as part of Hari's own interview with Negri, without crediting the authors or the translator.

This is plagiarism, and has been rightly identified as such in every single source I have personally seen aside from Hari's own self-description of his actions. Yonmei (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Its definitely copyright infringement, and almost certainly plagiarism. But the people he's infringing on aren't the people he's quoting (how can you "plagiarize" a person to whom you attribute the words?), they are the interviewers and editors whose material he's stolen.

I'm not clear why you think his plagiarism of Matthew Todd's work (for example) shouldn't be identified as plagiarism?Yonmei (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So its not cut and dry

I gave a direct example of Johann Hari plagiarising another person's work, and you respond with "so it's not cut and dry"? But sorry, this is a bit of a distraction. The issue is not whether you think that Hari taking the work of other writers is plagiarism, the issue is whether you can find any sources that say that it's not plagiarism to take from other people's work and use it as if it was your own. That's what I started this section to establish, and your views on Hari's plagiarism are really not relevant. Yonmei (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the issue is not about what I think. I repeat, my view is that its plagiarism or as near as dammit. Two other editors have expressed similar reservations to mine, however. One editor has described the issue as "moot"; another has argued that it is not plagiarism; I have argued a different point, although you seem not to see this. My most particular concern is that neither Hari nor the independent inquiry have answered to the accusations of plagiarism. That should be reflected in the article. We don't know what the terms of the inquiry were, nor what definition or standard of plagiarism they have applied. Zafio (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, it would be respectful if you could answer what I actually say rather than cutting my points off half way through. Zafio (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

, as a few editors here are pointing out to you. Nor has either Hari or the Independent enquiry come to an explicit conclusion of plagiarism. But I restate that I now agree that the heading of that section should make reference to plagiarism. Would you be happy to consider my compromise? Zafio (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: I didn't imply that your edits were irresponsible. I just meant that the article should weigh the matter responsibly, by discussion and consensus.Zafio (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. So, starting again... Yonmei (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you agree why do you dismiss our discussion as "not relevant"? Zafio (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Because your view that Hari using the work of otnhers as if it were his own is not plagiarism is not relevant to the question I felt needed answered: are there any verifiable sources which say Hari's taking other people's work and using it to improve his interviews is not plagiarism! See WP:VERIFY. If you cannot provide sources that say this isn't plagiarism, your view that it is not is not relevant. Yonmei (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei, you clearly haven't understood a word I have said here. I have never said that my view is that Hari's actions were not plagiarism. Not once have i said that (I have made some points about different potential interpretations of "plagiarism", and I'm not the only one who has made them). My view, in fact, that it is plagiarism. Nor have I denied that there are plentiful of verifiable sources that make that assertion. I did find a couple that argued the opposite, as requested, because these arguments do exist. However, I conceded your general point. Given that I'd done that, it seems absurd to have proceeded the way you have. Zafio (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Especially since other editors raise similar points to mine? You seemed to respond to my use of the word "responsible" so I thought it polite to clarify that I didn't say or mean to say that your edits were irresponsible. You seem to interpret this in a different way.Zafio (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ignore the discussion between Zafio and myself above: it's not relevant.Yonmei (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can any editor find any source published on or after than Monday 4 July which, taking into account all the evidence at that point of Johann Hari's use of other people's work as if it were his own, concludes that this unattributed use is not plagiarism?.Yonmei (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

From The Independent, Independent columnist apologises for plagiarism- "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism following an examination of evidence by Andreas Whittam Smith, a former editor of the paper." So that, I hope, is that. Yonmei (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I must confess, that I hadn't realised that the Independent had made such an explicit allusion to plagiarism. That fully satisfies my concerns expressed above, and I have no quibble with the slant of the article in this respect. Connect, I am sorry, but this is pretty conclusive. Yonmei, I have always been open to reasonable argument. You have shown yourself to be anything but (changing the terms of arguments that would satisfy you does not show respect, I'm afraid). Zafio (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any sources contradicting that, I agree that the Independent article satisfies the verifiability requirements for stating that Hari has admitted plagiarism.     ←   ZScarpia   14:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful - as long you find Hari using the word. Until you do, the section name should not be "plagiarism." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't follow this. Can you clarify why IPL, the owner of The Independent, quoted in their own newspaper, by a staff reporter, is not regarded as a reliable source for the report on the investigation into Johann Hari's plagiarism of articles?

Also, can you supply your sources saying that Hari's use of other people's work is not plagiarism?Yonmei (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you have no sources other than Johann Hari's assertion, can you clarify why allowing Johann Hari's unsupported word that his taking other people's work and using it as if it were his own was not plagiarism, is acceptable under the guidelines of WP:ABOUTSELF which allow this only if "the material is not unduly self-serving". Yonmei (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If the Independent is willing to use the term, after a two month inquiry, I don't see that Johann Hari's view has any particular weight here. Zafio (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My position was, and remains, that "Accusations of plagiarism" would be fine, but that we should not use the Wikipedia "voice" to assert that it was actual plagiarism. Simple. Just add "Accusations of" and we are done. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! We're not done until you can cite your sources. You're claiming you WP:KNOW. That's not enough. You need to cite verifiable sources justifying your view that the Independent 's report of its investigation, cited in the article, is incorrect, and this was not plagiarism. Yonmei (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect has inserted no claim in the article that this was *not* plagiarism. Therefore he doesn't have to provide a verifiable source of this kind. His concerns are more about what *Wikipedia* is entitled to assert as fact rather than accuasation. But as I say, now its clear the independent has described this as plagiarism, I think Wikipedia is in pretty safe territory. Zafio (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggested just such a compromise to Yonmei, who didn't respond to this attempt at compromise, as is par for the course with this editor. Change it if you like, but I think if the Independent are calling it plagiarism, then we don't have to worry too much about the Wikipedia "voice" here. There's been an inquiry, and his employer has decided its plagiarism. And Hari has not disputed this judgement, even if he hasn't used the word itself. And it wouldn't matter if he did dispute it, anyway. He's not the final arbiter of his own behaviour. Zafio (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, we're trying to discuss sources, not your opinions.Yonmei (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point at all I'm afraid. What I've said here (addressed to another editor) is clearly directed at matters pertaining to the article, in particular a claim about the Wikipedia "voice" and directly relating to a source. You have previously been warned about your behaviour towards me here, on the grounds of among other things harassment. Advising other editors to "ignore" our discussion on the grounds that you have decided my arguments are "not relevant", stonewalling, not addressing my attempts at compromise, and insinuating that I am offering mere "opinion" as opposed to discussing issues relevant to the article: all of this is familiar territory, I'm afraid. Please desist. Zafio (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case, I'm now actually agreeing with you, so there's no good reason to attack my discussions here. Zafio (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The section contents are about the accusations of plagiarism and the misuse of quotes - thus that title is specifically what the content of that section refers to. Please do not edit war in the blind belief that "Plagiarism" is the only possible acceptable title when this is entirely accurate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The section header you keep fiddling with is about the discovery of Johann Hari's plagiarism. Please do not edit war. Please do not make negative comments like "why the compromise is a problem is byond comprehension now" and "obstinacy on the single word is outre" in the Edit Summary - that's meant to be a brief description of your changes, not an attack on other editors. And finally, this new section in the Talk page was a request for sources other than [WP:ABOUTSELF], which you have consistently refused to provide. Yonmei (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You may have started this section as a "request for sources other than [Wp:ABOUTSELF]", but 3 other editors think that this is not the pertinent settling issue. When I did supply sources which were not [WP:ABOUTSELF], you then shifted your criteria (from the 1st to the 4th). But its strictly speaking unimportant, since no-one is inserting in the article a claim that it was not plagiarism. What is your objection to the wording of Collect's compromise? It doesn't misrepresent the situation: that section is about the accusations of plagiarism.Zafio (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus. Trying to establish consensus is what Talk pages are about. A critical component of that process is compromise. There is nothing false or misleading about Collect's compromise - why is it a problem for you?Zafio (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei, two points about your recent edit. First, no-one has inserted any claim into the article to suggest that Hari's actions were not plagiarism, nor even that they were disputed. You are reverting edits on grounds that do not exist, because these claims simply aren't being made in the article. Secondly, you are now in serial violation of WP:3RR. Stop this edit warring, since you provide no reasonable grounds for reverting these edits. Zafio (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

'Rehabilitation'

After a bit of thought I've cut this section entirely and moved it here. Hari speaking at a fairly unimportant-seeming conference does not constitute a 'rehabilitation', and indeed is not really noteworthy enough to include as a fact about Hari's life. Actualy its inclusion looks like it may just be covert advertising for the conference. Ben Finn (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

==Rehabilitation==

===Rebellious Media Conference===

On 26 August 2011, Johann Hari was announced as one of the speakers at the Rebellious Media Conference which will take place on 8 and 9 October.

• - http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/aug/22/media-events-conferences-noam-chomsky
• - http://rebelliousmediaconference.org/about/

I suspect the "rehabilition" header is irrelevant. Never really cared for it, and dunno exactly why it was ever put in. The article in the Guardian is, however, a "reliable source." Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

comment/opinion

I'm sorry, but frankly the way in which this article has been completely whitewashed to only primarily refer to the plagiarism and Wikipedia scandals with other subjects on Hari reduced to a few bare sentences is appalling. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The main reason that the article refers heavily to the plagiarism issue is because there are a large number of sources to back up each statement & because it is still ongoing. Once the issue has been resolved then it may become clear that some of the information has no relevance and can be removed without compromising the article. One of the major reasons that lots of other content has been removed is due to repetition, lack of sourcing and lack of neutrality. If you feel that there is anything else that needs to be added then be bold and add it. If any of it gets removed then we can form a consensus here on the talk page as has been done for several of the earlier cleanups. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. The facts are beyond dispute, Hari is a plagiarist and should be named and shamed as such. My TinyMind (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As someone who hadn't heard of Hari until this affair broke out (I do read the news every day and am not in an information vacum), I have to disagree that this article has become unbalanced. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the scandal is a far more significant news event than anything Hari may have said or done in the past, and has gained far more media coverage than any of his interviews/articles. Jayson Blair is a similar case - whatever he may have achieved as a New York Times reporter, he's unquestionably best known for the plagiarism discovery in 2003. To a large degree, a Wikipedia article about anyone's life is heavily weighted towards the most newsworthy events that occured during their life - Caster Semenya might conceivably object to the article about him/her being strongly focused on the gender controversy, but it's an unfortunate reality that that has become the most significant fact of her career. On another note, I wonder how long it will be before "David r from meth productions" is back here in another guise toning down the article - I don't think he'll be able to resist it, even after everything that's happened. --Palefire (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The other problem is that it is likely that a sizeable portion of the numerous articles that he wrote for the multiple newspapers and journals listed in the lead are junk. Jprw (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking to userpage of 'David_r_from_meth_productions'

There is disagreement over whether it is okay to link to a user page in the article. Part of the article is about the username 'David_r_from_meth_productions' and people will obviously want to see the userpage. I don't see why we should make it harder for people to reach it just because there is an absence of a specific guideline that allows it. This seems like common sense to me. - JRheic (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your common sense is over-ruled by the relevant guideline WP:BTW which states, "Do not create links to user or wikiproject pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself." Yesterday in an edit summary you suggested the Johann Hari article qualifies as an article about Wikipedia because it contains a section that mentions the project. I suggest this argument is plainly wrong. Linking to user space is a self-reference we should not make for obvious reasons, the link elucidates nothing and may lead to vandalism, abuse or further attempts to WP:OUT the user concerned. Exok (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, you might want to check up on WP:CYCLE. We don't open a discussion and then immediately make the change of which we're arguing in favour. It's BRD not BRB. Exok (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The bold edit was a means of alerting people to the discussion. There is no need to be confrontational. I don't believe any guideline over-rules common sense. I did not and do not claim that the article qualifies as an article about wikipedia, I just claim that particular section is about wikipedia. Just because the guideline only states 'articles' and not 'articles or sections' does not mean that applying the guideline to a section is outside the spirit of the guideline. They are called guidelines and not rules for a reason. In my opinion the link does elucidate the subject and it's something a lot of users will be interested in seeing when reading the section. I don't see why we should force them to search for it rather than provide the link. The 'outing' argument is irrelevant as the user has already been outed in the media and on the article page, linking to the page makes no difference to this. - JRheic (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes exceptions to the Manual of Style are justifiable, here there is good reason to stick to its guidance. For a well intentioned general reader with no understanding or interest in how Wikipedia is written an editor's user page is meaningless: it leads nowhere and will not assist in understanding Johann Hari's biography. To someone with malicious intent it provides an opportunity to make entirely unproven assumptions about an individual editor, (as you yourself have done). Exok (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An entry on the Guido Fawkes blog is possibly the reason why the 'David r' user page is being linked to. Paul Staines' blog is not usually thought of as a reliable source. Philip Cross (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, there are other reliable references; see "Indie Investigation" above.Straw Cat (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Those citations refer to the original allegations, not the conclusion of Whittam Smith's internal investigation. Philip Cross (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I'm not aware Smith has announced his findings yet. What they do do, which I understood was the point here, is reference that a user named David Rose was making defamatory edits to biographies of living persons on WP, who had fallen out with Mr Hari. Straw Cat (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that adding a link to the userpage would be helpful for two reasons:

1. Casual readers of Wikipedia don't need to see the inner workings of the encyclopedia like user pages and the project namespace as this blurs the distinction between the factual part "mainspace" and those parts where NPOV & verifiability aren't anywhere near as important.
2. By pointing to the user page of a blocked user there is an assumed accusation that the block was directly related to this incident which isn't very neutral.

--Mrmatiko (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Exok, I don't know what unproven assumptions you believe I've made; this is purely a technical matter and I expressed no opinion on the truth of the allegations. Mrmatiko, I see your point about keeping a separation between article mainspaces and the other sections of Wikipedia. I won't re-add the link. - JRheic (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that the link would add nothing to the article. The username is mentioned, and it's the easiest thing in the world to find the page and page history of the blocked user, even for someone with no Wikipedia experience.--Palefire (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If there has to be a section for the sockpuppetry/David R issue, shouldn't it be more balanced by including how David R has reportedly been acknowledged as a real, distinct person by Lenin's Tomb (cf the Jack of Kent blog post comments)? - Tavi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.233.80 (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Seymour (of Lenin's Tomb) is the only person who has made such a claim afaik. Self-published blogs are not admissible sources, but Seymour and David Allan Green (Jack of Kent) are when they write for (respectively) The Guardian or New Satesman blogs. The Wikipedia sockpuppetry issue has gained only marginal coverage compared with the investigations into Hari's journalism. Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In a post on his blog dated 14 September 2011 (published a few hours after Hari's confession that he was indeed David R), Seymour now acknowledges that he must have been mistaken about having met David Rose. 86.147.132.216 (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Achieving Consensus

In the past 24 hours this has turned into a bit of an edit war between myself, User:Collect who's new to the Johann Hari page, and User:Zafio who is not.

I agree here that I'll make no more changes to the Johann Hari page (and no further additions to the Talk page) for at least 24 hours from the timestamp. 10:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that to encourage input from other editors, that User:Collect and User:Zafio do the same (with the obvious exception that if either of them opt to change back the particularly disputed header to their preferred longer version, that's fair enough).

I suspect that we're going to see more news about Johann Hari shortly, making discussion over this particular point somewhat moot. Yonmei (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

To suggest that Hari has only been accused of plagiarism is really quite risible. It'll not be long before this section is entitled 'Plagiarism, fabrication and gay, racist, incest paedophile porn' anyhow, so I think certain editors should keep their powder dry for that battle! --82.41.20.82 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Yonmei, I think this is sensible. Athough you've violated WP:3RR in any case, and would be liable for administrative sanction on those grounds. I think the onus is on you to revert this edit here for that reason. Thanks. Zafio (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In your last revert of that edit, you refer to a discussion "asking for sources to justify claims that Johann Hari's plagiarism is "disputed"". However, the edit you revert here makes no claims that Hari's plagiarism is "disputed". If you really believe the header of the section "Accusations of plagiarism and misuse of quotes" makes an unverified claim, you have to delete the whole section as the section deals with accusations of plagiarism and misuse of quotes. I don't see why this should need repeating again. No. Unverified. Edits. Made.Zafio (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The xection uses the terms "accusations" which seems that "accusations" is found in the section - which means that, in my opinion, use of "accusations" is reasonable in the name of the section. Additionally, the section refers specifically to the misuse of quotations, which rather suggests that it is reasonable to use "misuse of quotes" in the name of the section. I deepy regret the imputations of "edit war" when it is clear that one and only one editor is insisting on his version of the section title, contrary to the way WP:CONSENSUS works. If no one other than Yonmei is dead set on using "Plagiarism" as the only title for that section, I shall presume that consensus is for the longer section title. Cheers - but, Yonmei, at this point it sure looks like consensus is not on your side here. Collect (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The section should be called 'Plaigarism' because that's what it's about-Hari's admitted to it and nobody's disputing that he did it, the @accusations' title is misleading and weasel-word-y. An edit war is indeed what was going on, and consensus decision making is not, contrary to popular opinion, majority decision making-but for what it's worth, I'm with user:Yonmei here.FelixFelix ^talk

It seems you have a teeny bit of history here. I doubt your view can be considered an outside view considering your past "edits" on this article. Cheers. [2] shows a COATRACK for which you were caught, etc. Collect (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has attempted to insert a claim in the article that this was not plagiarism, nor that this is disputed. There are good quality sources in the article that assert that it was plagiarism. There were indeed initial *accusations* of plagiarism, on the basis of which the Independent set up the inquiry. That section (I think written largely by Yonmei, and with which I have no quibble) outlines what those accusations were. A later section cites the Independent's response: plagiarism. I consider the inclusion of this source (discovered by Yonmei, and which is in my view conclusive) a positive result of the discussion of Friday/Saturday. There is nothing misleading or weaselly in the word accusations since the main body of that section refers directly to accusations, in precise words. The title "Plagiarism" isn't inaccurate, but the fuller title gives a more precise explanation of the contents. And it is also a useful compromise since it addresses the concerns of some editors that Wikipedia be careful and conservative in its wording on this issue. Zafio (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Felix that the use of "accusations" is bordering on weasle-words. It implies that there is still only a claim of wrongdoing, when in fact the claims were investigated by the Indy and found to be proven. In the grand scheme of things, how the section is sub-headed won't make much difference to Hari's "reputation" now, however. He's been outed as a liar, plagiarist and slanderer; fussing about the section headings here is like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. JenniferGovernment 12:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like 'Zafio' and 'Collect' are now at the helm of "meth productions". The notion that the Hari entry should eschew the word 'plagiarism' is risible. That is what he was accused of and that is what he has apologised for, even if he has tried to avoid the word in a manner one would expect from someone who has spent years editing their own Wikipedia entry and vandalising those of people whom he didn't like. The snide comments about the contribution of FELIX-FELIX are equally risible: if anything, Wikipedia owes that user a massive apology for giving him a hard time for daring to suggest that "Dave R" (Johann Hari himself) might be steering the entry in an illegitimately hagiographic direction. SamuelSpade79

Why was my (above) contribution to the discussion mysteriously removed? I am calling into question the relevance of references to FELIX-FELIX's history - the last few months have revealed his work on this entry to have been extremely important and his (eventually thwarted) attempt to stop Dave R (who we now know was Johann Hari) turning it into a self-serving hagiography. SamuelSpade79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.42.215 (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The subsection heading currently titled "Accusations of plagiarism and misuse of quotes" should, in my opinion, be changed to "Plagiarism and misuse of quotes", on the grounds that the current title implies that the plagariam is only an accusation and not a settled fact. As far as I can see, only User:Collect disagrees with this-as far as I can see on unspecified BLP grounds. That the independent themselves have reported Hari's plagarism as such, as well as the tremendous weight of evidence for this, and the fact that Hari is not denying plagarism, all strongly point to this being safe BLP-wise. Unless there are any other grounds for keeping the clumsy and misleading title as it is, I will change it tomorrow.FelixFelix ^talk 11:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Read - your claim that only I disagree with you is incorrect. Note further that the main section title was changed to reflect your position about main title and subsection titles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am in agreement that the current section title is correct. The content of the sub-section is about the accusations of plagiarism not the entire story of accusations, investigation, and admission. This is the trouble when an article builds in time with the release of information. The sorry tale of plagiarism could probably be condensed down into a single section (entitled "plagiarism and misuse of quotes") with a bit of judicious editing. It would also take out some of the referencing pile up in the middle of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In order to say that someone commited plagiarism, one needs a source that says that. Otherwise it is synthesis, "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". TFD (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We've got a source, the Independent itself. This is water tight. I'm all for shortening the article, btw-it is, and always has been far too long.FelixFelix ^talk 06:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On the matter of the source, I must agree with FelixFelix. Hari submitted to an investigation by the Independent, the findings of which he doesn't dispute. It was the Independent which published the bulk of his journalism, and the Independent specifically uses the word plagiarism. For editors themselves to try to decide whether what Hari did constitutes plagiarism is slipping in to Original Research. Reliable Sources describe it as plagiarism, as does the publisher of the plagiarism. This should not still be in question a week after explicit sources have been posted on this talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 07:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I reset the first subsection to Accusations of because the content is about accusations and added "plagiarism" to the section header of admission of... This is because, as written, the section on journalistic controversy is a chonological story of the controversy - following a pattern of allegation, investigation, outcome. If the first subsection had included a third allegation which wasn't proved it would be called Accusation... wouldn't it? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, the heading "Journalistic controversies" is strictly speaking inaccurate as it doesn't cover the sockpuppeteering. Jprw (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me any Wikipedia noticeboard posting making clear that "sockpuppeteering" was a major problem totally unrelated to journalism on Hari's part? I suspect 99% of the actual controversy had to do with his odd use of quotes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

When The Spectator starts publishing articles about one's sockpuppeteering, one must suspect that it has become a "major problem." JenniferGovernment 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that "sock" has a specific meaning as a term of art on Wikipedia - generally requiring use of at least two accounts. The issue, moreover, was the nature of the edits by one specific account - which is not "socking" but is simply abue of what an editor is supposed to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Two points: i) the dictionary definition of sock puppetry accords with this situation perfectly ii) the Wikipedia policy you mention lists 'creating new identities to avoid detection' and 'logging out to make problematic edits' as criteria for sock puppets, both of which he's coughed to. You also argued the validity of the word 'plagiarism' long after reliable sources had been produced explicitly using just that word. I'm curious why you're now arguing another minor point which doesn't need arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the definitions again - unless Hari already had an account editing in the same area, Wikipedia does not consider a separate account to be a "sock puppet." And if he did not have another account, then no definition calls using a screenname other than one's own name to be a "sock puppet." If you wish it to include "any screen name other than your own real name, then "BearAllen" is likely to fit that broad a definition, along with 99.9% of all editor names. I trust you would not even think of asserting that broad a definition, of course. I did not find User:Johann Hari by the way. Nor "J Hari" nor "Johann H" etc. What user name do you assert was the father of the sock? Unless you can find that he used two names to hide identity or misuse Wikipedia by using two identities, it neither meets the Wikipedia definition, nor the customary Internet definition of "sock." cheers. And I would like you to note that consensus backed the labelling of the "accusations" as "accusations." That is how Wikipedia works - using what the sources say, not what editors assert they know personally. Collect (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How about User:Robblackhurst, User:Thelionforreal and User:Quinefan? Is the jury still out on those three? JenniferGovernment 22:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes and an investigation has also just been been launched into User:Zafio, see here Jprw (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You are continuing to be either obtuse or deceptive. You are retelling the 'plagiarism' debate the other way round. It was you who were debating whether or not what Hari did was actually plagiarism, and Yonmei and others who quoted reliable sources - the Guardian and the Independent - which say Hari admits to plagiarism. Also, the debate about what to call that particular section of the article is different from the debate about whether what Hari did was plagiarism or not. Don't conflate them.

Merriam Webster defines a sock puppet as 'a false online identity used for deceptive purposes'. Wordspy defines it as 'A fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work, particularly in an online discussion group or the comments section of a blog'. Hari did not just use a pseudonym, he created an entirely different identity and claimed it to be a real person, and he specifically denied he and David Rose were one and the same. He also repeatedly used IP addresses to edit WP, as well as several other accounts investigated as sock puppets. David R of meth productions was blocked on the grounds of being a sock puppet account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What's more, four editors spoke in favour of 'plagiarism', three in favour of 'accusations of plagiarism', and one made an ambiguous comment in the talk section seeking a consensus. That is not a consensus in favour of 'accusations of plagiarism' as you claimed. BearAllen (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

" What user name do you assert was the father of the sock? Unless you can find that he used two names to hide identity or misuse Wikipedia by using two identities, it neither meets the Wikipedia definition, nor the customary Internet definition of "sock." cheers"

Even if you wish to exclude the other identities Hari is accused of using, and the anonymous IP addresses he used to edit, the Independent states clearly and explicitly that Hari admits to using the David Rose persona. 'David Rose' posted not just on Wikipedia but on other websites, such as DailyAblution. Hari referenced Rose in articles on his own website, Rose in return claimed to be in contact with Hari. They each refer to material claimed to be written by the other. That certainly does fit the definition of sock puppetry. BearAllen (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1. IP addresses are not "socks" by any accepted definition. They are assigned either as fixed or not fixed by your ISP, and, in fact, exist for registered editors as well (CU examines the IP locations for registered editors). They may be treated for blocking as "socks" if and only if they are used to evade a proper block on an editor - which generally is administrative and not a matter of calling IP addresses per se socks." Many editors who do not register may end up with hundreds of IP addresses, by the way. "Sock" refers to using a second screenname - and so far you have not shown such to be the case. There is no rule at all against using a screenname other than your own personal name, else "BearAllen" would also then count as a "sock name." Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Merriam Webster:'a false online identity used for deceptive purposes' Please explain how David R doesn't fit that description?

Wordspy: 'A fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work, particularly in an online discussion group or the comments section of a blog' Please explain how David R doesn't fit that description?

""Sock" refers to using a second screenname" Please provide a reliable source that a sock puppet must be a second screen name, and not a screen name used to comment on one's real identity?

"and so far you have not shown such to be the case" Yes I have, you're just choosing not to see. Hari uses his own name on his website - that is his screen name - and refers to David Rose. Rose posts on other websites and refers to Hari. A pseudonym, such as Collect, is used to post anonymously. Hari was using another persona to comment on himself. That is sockpuppetry. Please quote reliable sources instead of just asserting you are right. BearAllen (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• -WP:Sockpuppet - Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a WP policy, not a definition, nor a reliable source. Hari's sockpuppetry went beyond just Wikipedia. It would not be appropriate to use a WP policy to define a behaviour documented before the creation of WP - and in this case operating both inside WP and beyond it - to the exclusion of the wider meaning supported by the dictionary definition. BearAllen (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, please present your desired addition here and the reliable externals you want to support it with and I will investigate it for you, - Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Other way round. I'm happy with the few lines which cover it in the article, I was arguing against the assertion that what Hari did was not sockpuppetry. Regards BearAllen (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Felix-Felix, could you please provide a link to the statement in The independent you mentioned at 06:12, 21 September 2011. TFD (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"In a statement, the paper said that Hari "admits the central accusations made against him, that of embellishment of quotations/plagiarism, and that it was he who used the pseudonym David Rose to attack his critics".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/14/johann-hari-apologises-orwell-prize BearAllen (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Relevance?

Johann Hari was at university with a man named David Rose who is now Assistant News Editor at The Times. 'David Rose' on Wikipedia had invited readers to contact Richard Seymour, who blogs at Lenin's Tomb, as he had met 'David Rose' and could confirm his existence. Seymour says he met someone accompanying Johann Hari in 2005, who identified himself as David Rose. "Now it turns out the real David Rose is likely to be this guy [Assistant News Editor at The Times], who doesn't resemble the person I met, and hasn't known Hari for 10 years. So, the question I'm now asking is: who the hell did I meet?"

What has this got to do with anything? Is it rumour or speculation or what? I am going to remove it unless its specific connection to this person is clarified. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The likely implication I read into it is that Hari met Seymour with someone pretending to be Davis Rose, probably to disguise the fact that he'd been abusively editing Wikipedia. That does seem quite important to me.     ←   ZScarpia   16:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But its so vague and "implied" and not said. and it "probably" occurred because of .... Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes.     ←   ZScarpia   08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The first edit by David r from meth productions/David Rose was on 19 October 2006, some time after Richard Seymour met someone identifying himself as David Rose. Philip Cross (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So, its some unexplainable factoid then... strange but nothing more than that.. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the timing. Is what we have, then, that Hari has now admitted that that he was the editor 'David r', but, before the admission, was trying to pretend that the person doing the editing was the person he met Seymour with before starting to edit Wikipedia? We have no idea, though, who the person who met Seymour with Hari is or whether it has any significance that Hari was at university with the David Rose who is now Assistant News Editor at the Times? Is my memory that 'David r' was found to be editing from a computer with an IP address belonging to The Independent and that Hari tried to explain it away by saying that it was the person he was with when he met Seymour correct?     ←   ZScarpia   19:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) (edited 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Here is Hari's admittance and here is the account and suspected connected accounts. SPI is currently open - Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And the ANI discussion leading up to the community ban placed on David_r and David_r's block log.     ←   ZScarpia   08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't admit to editing under the "David_r..." identity in his statement but to not editing under a "Johann Hari" identity. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• He* doesn't, no, but the Independent specifically says he admits to using the David Rose persona. His 'apologies' have been the model of self-serving obfuscation, and should be taken with a pinch of salt. He's not exactly a reliable source right now. BearAllen (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Student Journalist of the Year 2000

Hello, I'm new here so please treat any breaches of etiquette leniently. I noticed that in the 'awards' section, Johann Hari is listed as being the Time Student Journalist of the Year 2000. The source is a 2005 mini-biography of Hari from the BBC website. The information for such a biography would be likely to have been provided by Hari himself. Although there were two UK student journalism awards ceremonies in 2000, one of them was sponsored by The Guardian and one of them by The Independent. I wasn't sure if I should just go ahead and take this out, so I thought I'd post on here first. Arveed (talk) 08:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like some other confirmation that "Times Student Journalist of the Year 2000" never existed before assuming the BBC got it wrong (such as from someone at THE or the BBC). I note that the BBC quotes this information in more than one place. If Hari lied about his awards this would be worth adding to the article as this information has been repeated quite widely. I do recall attempting to search for evidence of these awards well before the article become controversial and had great difficulty finding sources, however being hard to verify is not the same thing as concluding the information is false. Fæ (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As a student journalist at that time I entered my student newspaper for the Guardian Media Awards. I also recall the paper being entered for the Independent/NUS Awards. I do not recall any award matching 'Times Student Journalist of the Year'. It is difficult to find evidence of this award. . If the award didn't exist, such evidence would not exist. I also note that Johann Hari's biography (http://johannhari.com/about/) goes into some detail about his early career but does not mention this award. Arveed (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that, however I would be concerned at blanking well sourced information based on your memory alone. If the BBC were to correct their pages or The Times were to confirm they never supported such an award in 2000 then this would be rather interesting to add to the article. Fæ (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any record of the award. It's not a terribly good source, I don't think. While it is the BBC, it's really just a tv listing. It doesn't have the same fact checking as a news story. I emailed the Times, if they reply I'll let you know. As Fae says, it will actually be something of a story if he turns out to have made it up. BearAllen (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also asked The Times whether such an award existed. Unfortunately I don't have access to a cuttings database, as a search for the relevant terms for the editions of The Times in 2000 could produce a conclusive result very quickly. Arveed (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I do have access to LexisNexis and find nothing for "Student Journalist of the Year" + "2000" + "Hari", however we are looking to prove a negative so such results are not definitive and you should note that the matches I get when dropping "Hari" are a rather mixed bunch of sources (educational supplements et al may not be on the database). Cheers Fæ (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS implies the BBC is a "reliable source" absent any source stating otherwise, but I agree that the specific honour may be in doubt. I did find "Giles Coren/ The Times/ Published: 13 September 2003/ Giles Coren ... January 7), Guardian political editor Michael White on Commons reform (January 11), and young journalist of the year Johann Hari in a 90th birthday interview with Michael Foot for The Independent (July 20) all “colouring up”... showing The Times referred to him as "young journalist of the year" in an article. Collect (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The award existed, I can't link it (paywall) but here is a copypasta: "...Two students tied for first place in The Times Student News Journalist Award with Sky News, and both win a valuable six-week work placement with Sky News in addition to receiving Pounds 4,000 each. Johann Hari, 21, studying social and political science at King's College, Cambridge, impressed the judges with a vivid magazine interview with the veteran Labour MP Tony Benn and a film dealing with attempts to "cure" gay men." [Morris, Sally (15 June 2000) "Future perfect" The Times] JenniferGovernment 11:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a complete copypasta of it here. JenniferGovernment 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, convinces me that there's nothing to worry about. I suggest the new sources are added in for additional verification. --Fæ (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"vivid magazine interview". One wonders how vivid. Jprw (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather like the idea that Hari learned the ropes at Sky News. JenniferGovernment 12:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Query about Sockpuppetry parenthetical SYNTH

Query: Is the parenthetical statement about "sockpuppetry" [3] an example of SYNTH as it is not found in the source given for the main claim, but is appended to the claim with its own separate definition? Note that WP:SYNTH states:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

In the case at hand, the source from the Guardian does not define sockpuppetry, but the parenthetical definition and accusation using the word is sourced to dictionaries, and not to a reliable source dealing with Mr. Hari. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What the Guardian piece is, on its own without any synthesis, is a source (among others out there) which explicitly makes an accusation of being a sockpuppet about David_r. Why would we not want to help casual readers by guiding them to links to sockpuppetry, since it is now so often connected in the media to this controversy?Straw Cat (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Sockpuppetry is the use of multiple accounts to circumvent Wikipedia rules and sanctions. Editing under an alias on Wikipedia is normal. Even editing under multiple aliases is not necessarily sockpuppetry. The editor behind the David_r account, almost certainly Hari, was suspected of indulging in sockpuppetry, but no investigations were carried out, so the truth of the allegations was never established.     ←   ZScarpia   11:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's slightly inaccurate: the SPI is ongoing. JenniferGovernment 12:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of developments since 18 September.     ←   ZScarpia   14:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite so. Sockpupettry itself is older than Wikipedia, and is using a false identity to comment on yourself. See the examples on the Wikipedia article. Using multiple accounts on Wikipedia is a narrower usage specific to Wikipedia, and one imagines that those who wrote the WP policy on sockpuppetry were not thinking of famous people editing their own articles, but devising guidelines for dealing with editors who manipulate the articles they're editing.

Merriam Webster defines a sock puppet as 'a false online identity used for deceptive purposes'. Wordspy defines it as 'A fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work, particularly in an online discussion group or the comments section of a blog'. Hari clearly fits this description. It should be noted that the David Rose persona was used outside of Wikipedia as well, and so the broader usage of sockpuppet is appropriate. BearAllen (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Those changes are not appropriate. It was being discussed, I asked for sources, and two editors have chosen to bypass that and just make the changes anyway. Hari's behaviour meets the dictionary definition of sockpuppettry to a tee, and he has admitted to it in his own paper. Please use sources, not assertions. BearAllen (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Alas for you, the claims as worded in the section did not use "sockpuppetry" in the section. Using words akin to the words in a section is standard practice on Wikipedia. As for "to a tee" - that is clearly inaccurate per the definitions already cited supra. What we have is that you "know" it is "sockpuppetry" and therefore the article must reflect what you "know." Now I wish I were half as omniscient, but , alas, I rely on using what "relaible sources" state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, cut the tone. The unwarranted superiority is what drives people away from editing and leaves it to self-satisfied, misdirected pedants who revel in it. Secondly, as requested about a dozen times, please provide these reliable sources for what 'sockpuppetry' is. You keep claiming you rely on reliable sources, yet you don't produce them, you just assert, which is strange given your repeated use of "know". You keep repeating a definition of sockpuppetry which comes from WP, not a reliable source.

Try these: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sock%20puppet

http://www.wordspy.com/words/sockpuppet.asp

What's more, you've made a fundamental error in confusing the name of a Wikipedia policy for the definition of a word. Again, odd considering your tone. Wikipedia articles are supposed to use language recognizable to non-Wikipedia editors, and not to naval gaze as if everyone is as interested in Wiki as the editors. 'Sockpuppetry' is a widely used term across the internet, its meaning is well known and, if it weren't, it was explained in the article. It's also the term which has been used widely to describe Hari's internet behaviour in the mainstream media.

Frankly, though, have the page however you like. It seems clear from the dogmatic nature of your editing on this page over the last couple of weeks that discussion isn't your thing. Claiming people "know" when that seems to be what you're doing, claiming you have consensus when you were actually in a minority and, perhaps most bizarrely, appearing to think Wikipedia now has the power to decide the meaning of words for the rest of the world. Please, be bold, keep arguing with the dictionary. It always makes people look smarter. Cheers! BearAllen (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:AGF by the way. My only "dogma" here is that Wikipedia has guidelines and policies (including WP:BLP which are not "clothing optionaly" policies. I showed you that the Internet definition of the word conforms to Wikipedia's usage, and that using a screenname which is not your own name is not "sockpuppetry" on the Internet, per normal Internet usage. And that where a section does not use the term "sockpuppetry" in the section, that Wikipedia practice is not to use a term in a section ttle which does not accurately reflect the actual words in the section. I regret that you confuse following policy with "having your own way" but I assure you that BLP policies are a major and important area of policy on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC) n

" I showed you that the Internet definition of the word conforms to Wikipedia's usage,"

You did not show me, you quoted from WP policy. You did not use any examples from outside Wikipedia, nor even the WP article itself, which contradicts you a) Do not mistake the name of a policy with the meaning of the word. b)The internet definition does not conform to the WP policy. You are wilfully ignoring reliable sources, without producing any to back it up.

" and that using a screenname which is not your own name is not "sockpuppetry" on the Internet, per normal Internet usage."

No, it isn't, I never claimed it was. You are again wilfully ignoring what was said. Sockpuppetry is 'a false online identity used for deceptive purposes' and 'A fake persona used to discuss or comment on oneself or one's work, particularly in an online discussion group or the comments section of a blog'.

I do not "know" that this description fits Johann Hari, Hari admits to creating an online persona which he used to maliciously edit wikipedia articles. He also used the persona on other internet sites. His newspaper says he admits being the person who posts as David Rose/David r from meth productions. Other publications detail his malicious commenting/editing on Wikipedia and other sites.

Anyway, this is simply a waste of life. You may wish to make the 'Sockpuppet (internet) article your next project. You may notice that not a single word of it accords with your idea of sockpuppetry, and all of the notable examples it cites fall outside outside of your definition. You may also want to contact the New York Times and tell them how wrong they are about what a sockpuppet is.

" A sock puppet, for those still boning up, is a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks while pretending not to, like a puppeteer manipulating a hand puppet. Recently, a senior editor at The New Republic got in trouble for some particularly colorful sock puppetry."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/opinion/13wed4.html

And, yes, the word 'sockpuppet' was in the article until someone removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read this one too:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/technology/16blog.html?ex=1342238400&en=9a3424961f9d2163&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"This digital-age deception has a name, “sock-puppeting,” and a precise definition — the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

This is exactly what Hari admitted to:

" I created a user-name that wasn’t my own. Using that user-name, I continued to edit my own Wikipedia entry and some other people’s too. I took out nasty passages about people I admire – like Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot, Deborah Orr and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I factually corrected some other entries about other people. But in a few instances, I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious: I called one of them anti-Semitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to recall where I read this, but isn't it policy that WP cannot use WP as a reference? Citing WP's sockpuppet policy as a definition of sockpuppetry might, therefore, not really be cricket. JenniferGovernment 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Apparently the difference between a dictionary definition and the name of a policy is a tough thing to grasp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." (WP:IRS) Just sayin'. JenniferGovernment 16:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I have got this wrong, but I would have thought that a formal decision that a user has been banned as a sockpuppet, as David_r has been for some time, by consensus of the community, had some kind of authority?Straw Cat (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The contested community ban did not simply say "sock" but the proposal also had "and/or POV-pushing" which rather weakens that argument substantially. Further the gist of the discussion related to BLP violations, and not to any claims of "socking." Sorry again - that AN/I discussion does not support the conclusion you wish to impute to it. 'David r" was banned for his abuse of BLP, and nothing else if you read the consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Block notice reads: 06:11, 13 July 2011 Courcelles (talk | contribs) blocked David r from meth productions (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: A record of BLP problems that literally goes back years.) Collect (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Wikipedia's internal policy is NOT a reliable source for a definition of sockpuppetry. To claim otherwise is an abuse of policy. Reliable sources define - and declare - Hari's actions as sockpuppetry. JenniferGovernment 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, at least some of the sources said that Hari had used what is known on Wikipedia as a sockpuppet to malign others. What is known on Wikipedia as a sockpuppet is defined by Wikipedia policy.     ←   ZScarpia   19:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

What sources? 'Sockpuppet' is an internet idiom which has been around for longer than WP itself. The meaning of the word is not defined by a WP policy. The policy just sets out guidelines for dealing with people suspected of sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)