Talk:Johann Hari/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Headings

Every time I look at this article the headings have morphed into some nonsense pseudo-commentary on either how awful or how vindicated Hari is. Stop it; that is not the purpose of headings! If the TOC starts to look like a shopping list then you know you are on the wrong track :)

Simple neutral headers are encouraged, used to carefully divide content to make it easier for the reader. Not for making a point. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The heading about Plagiarism, over the content specifically about his plagiarism, is short and a neutral acknowledgement of fact at this point - Johann Hari was investigated and acknowledged plagiarism to his employer, who published his acknowledgement and theirs in the first two paragraphs of this news report on 15 September. For ease of reference for a new reader looking at the page, there has to be a header with "Plagiarism" on the contents list. Arguing back and forth over whether this should be lengthened by "Accusations of " is IMO a waste of space - it's a subject header, and the material under it makes quite clear exactly what he was shown to have done. Yonmei (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The first subsection (currently named "Plagiarism") is - as I have pointed out before - about accusations of plagiarism. Nowhere in that section does it say tha he did do the things (that he is now known to have done) Equally the currently named apology does not of itself explain what he is apologising for. The lede should state quite clearly (in summary style) what he did - the subsectioning is for breaking up the "story" into manageable chunks (roughly accusations, more attention to the accusations, investigation, aftermath). There is no particular limitation on section header length and longer headers are found (eg BA buys its Concordes outright, Allied logistics, intelligence, morale and air power ). There needs to be a balance between description of content and brevity - and at the moment its swung one way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Headers are intended simply to section content - so I don't necessarily think the first heading is at all needed or useful - it being redundant, occurring after a single sentence.... (if you really MUST have plagiarism in there somewhere :) put it in the top level header) however I'm not going to force the issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Journalistic controversies" is a pretty good top-level header for the whole situation - given it also now covers the issues like Hari's using Wikipedia sockpuppets to libel his critics, the withdrawal of the Orwell Prize, and possibility of future blow-ups as further issues come to light, if they do. I initially inserted the headers where they now sit simply to make it easier to follow. But the controversies started when a series of examples of Hari plagiarising other people's work came to light in June/July. Before the Independent investigation concluded and Hari's admission of plagiarism was publicised, it was probably legally necessary to call it "Accusations of plagiarism", despite being able to link to plain examples of Hari taking other people's words and using them as his own without acknowledgement or attribution. But as Hari has now admitted that this is plagiarism and he did it, I really don't see why there's any need to lengthen the heading with "accusations" or "allegations". (Sorry, forgot to log in!) Yonmei (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not agree with you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The opinions of others may not: but the facts do support me. And I'm a firm believer in facts as opposed to opinions, no matter how other people might spin them.Yonmei (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly enough - you rely on his apology once again, which never uses the word. The "accusations" which are properly listed as "accusations" form one section. Your implicit claim that he is therefore guilty of "plagiarism" rests solely on his apology, which does not use the term, and on an unpublished investigation, which is scarcely a reliable source. I realize Hari is certainly despicable, but Wikipedia has this annoying rule that strong language must be backed by strong and specific reliable sources in any BLP. I realize this is quite a nuisance, but we have to live with it. Meanwhile, I think you would be well-advised not to WP:CANVASS anyone on any topic for a while. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To quote the article, 2nd para: "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism".Straw Cat (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The published findings of an independent investigation, confirmed by the subject of the investigation, are surely sufficiently reliable source even by [[WP:BLP]}. So for consensus, that's two for using Plagiarism, based on a reliable source: Collect against, but Collect doesn't appear to have looked at the source, since they seem to think it's just an apology rather than a report of the Independent's investigation. I appreciate what GraemeLeggett is saying, that the headings represent the process of the controversy - but Hari's plagiarism is now established beyond all doubt. Yonmei (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I read, and reread, precisely what was stated I fear your personal attacks are not only unwarranted, they verge on actionable at WQA. Cheers. And as I have found no source stating that Hari referred to it as "plagiarism" that rather ends that. And again - please do not CANVASS for any articles. It may create an appearance that you do not rust the clear WP:CONSENSUS here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is there a problem with the link to this source? You will find clearly stated there that "Johann Hari, the writer and columnist for The Independent, has admitted plagiarism allegations" in the very first paragraph. I'm afraid I don't see any clear WP:CONSENSUS here - you appear to be a lone voice arguing against the very clear statement from a reliable source that Hari has admitted he committed plagiarism. Yonmei (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All I ask is that you find a Hari quote where he makes any statement remotely the same as "I plagiarized." -- Simple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! So you're actually okay with "Johann Hari, the writer and columnist for The Independent, has admitted plagiarism allegations" as that fulfils your stated conditions. Thanks! Glad we could sort this out. Yonmei (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

'Collect' - you seem to wrongly conflate the meaning of concepts with the linguistic terms used to refer to them. One can admit to plagiarism without using the word 'plagiarism'. That's fairly obvious stuff. SamuelSpade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.175.204 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting claim -- but egregiously false. Posit: "John Doe admitted to murdering his wife, but he never says he killed her" and defend that as allowing a claim in a BLP of "John Doe admitted to murdering his wife." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

But the reliable source (i.e The Independent) doesn't say that he 'never says he' plagiarised. It says that he has admitted to plagiarism. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see your point anyway. The sentence "John Doe admitted to murdering his wife, but he never says he killed her" doesn't make any sense because murder IS unlawful killing. In that example John Doe has said that he killed her and the second part of the sentence has contradicted the first. - JRheic (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you really mean to say 'egregiously' false or were you just grasping for a big word to compensate for your inability to think this through? I suspect the latter. As JRheic points out, your analogy is hopeless because it presents a person stating a contradication. Hari didn't say he 'didn't plagiarise', quite the reverse: he did however admit to plagiarism without using the term. In the same way, you can confess to murder without using the word 'murder': 'I killed her with malice of forethought'. Your arguments about this entry aren't - as some others have suggested - boring pedantry, but rather quite silly. SamuelSpade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.175.204 (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Egregious" was, and remains, the proper word. Hari has never used the word "plagiarism" as something he has apologized for. Period. If he did, just find that quote - but without it, we can not ascribe such an apology to him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Johann Hari, the writer and columnist for The Independent, has admitted plagiarism allegations" ... "The writer, who has apologised for his actions" - Sorry, we have a report from a reliable source that Hari has admitted to and apologised for plagiarism: we are not ascribing an apology for plagiarism to him, the reliable source cited is. Consensus has been reached. Thanks! Yonmei (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And your post misstates what Hari actually said. Amazingly enough, I am absolutely consistent across all people in that I fnd WP:BLP to be solid policy, and saying things in headers which are not explicitly borne out in the cites foes against my grain. Headlines are poor sources where actual wording is key. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well if my example really was 'conspicuously and offensively' false, perhaps you wouldn't mind pointing out why, since your analogy obviously doesn't work. As I pointed out (maybe read the point v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y), we can ascribe an admission of plagiarism to Hari in the same manner as we can ascribe an admission of murder to someone who doesn't actually use the linguistic referent 'murder', but instead says 'I killed person X with malice of forethought'. You don't need to use the word to refer to meaning behind it. This really is very, very basic stuff. I'm sorry you're struggling to grasp it. SamuelSpade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.175.204 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely it doesn't even matter what we can find in quotes from Hari anyway. A reliable source that also happens to be his employer has reported that he has apologised for plagiarism. We need a reliable source and we have one. A quote from Hari himself would be good to have in the section but it isn't necessary to establish the verifiable facts of the situation. - JRheic (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps word it to the effect that his employers state that he admits to plagiarism. BearAllen (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Going back to the earlier discussion about whether the section heading should be "plagiarism" or "accusations of plagiarism", the point of BLP is that we do not write things about people that have not been explicitly stated in reliable sources. Well, it has been stated. I accept the point that Hari did not use the term "plagiarism" and therefore all we can report him as saying is what he actually said. TFD (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In what respect is The Independent newspaper not considered a reliable source? In a article I've linked to, it explicitly states that Hari admitted to plagiarism. The only source against that is Hari's personal blog. I really don't get why a bylined newspaper report on what Hari admitted to is considered unreliable? I read WP:IRS - it says "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". In what way is "Johann Hari, the writer and columnist for The Independent, has admitted plagiarism allegations" not a statement of fact?Yonmei (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Apology and admission of plagiarism according to The Independent' heading: I think the 'according to The Independent' part is redundant. It should be 'Apology and admission of plagiarism'. Everything on Wikipedia is according to some source, that's what references are for, it's not what headings are for. This isn't how it's done on the rest of Wikipedia and I don't see why this is a special case. I see this wording was added by Collect without any discussion, so we need to get a consensus on this. Other than that, the headings seem ok to me.- JRheic (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree - this is turning the headings back into discussion topics. It has been explicitly stated in a reliable source that Hari admitted to plagiarism: literally the only source against that explicit statement is Hari's personal blog, in which he admits to plagiarism in a very roundabout way avoiding using the word he is cited using in the news report, which is based on an independent investigation into his behaviour. What is the issue against heading the section about Hari's plagiarism simply "plagiarism"? His admission to plagiarism is backed by a reliable source, and multiple examples of his plagiarism are cited in that section of the bio. Yonmei (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You iterate "facts not in evidence." What we have is that his employer makes a statement which is not borne out by any published words of Hari. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not accurate. Many published words of Hari, linked to in the section on his plagiarism, bear out the accusation of plagiarism. What you mean is that in Hari's personal blog, when he admits he committed plagiarism, he does not actually use the word plagiarism - but the news report of his admission to his employer says he admitted plagiarism. You did say that you would accept "any statement remotely the same as 'I plagiarised'" and that we have. Yonmei (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The section in question discusses the accusations of plagiarism made against Hari - any conclusion is then made in later sections. "Plagiarism accusations" seems entirely descriptive & accurate. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The section that was headed "Plagiarism" could equally be headed "Discovery of Plagiarism" - all of the links in it are to reliable sources in which examples of Hari's plagiarism are published. But I think both 'Discovery of' and "Accusations of' take sides: the better, more neutral, and shorter heading is just plain Plagiarism.Yonmei (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact, why do we need to use different rules and standards for this article than is used, for example, for Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass? In neither of those articles can I find the subjects being quoted admitting plagiarism - despite that confession being proposed here as some sort of new rule. Instead, the evidence of plagiarism is laid out, in greater detail, from various RS's. Indeed the Blair article has the more robust heading 'Plagiarism and fabrication scandal'. We should not be seen to be using racist double standards - as I'm sure David_r would tell us.Straw Cat (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Try again -- Blair actually did plagiarize quotations from AP articles and passed the writing off as is own - in multiple articles. In short, he did "kidnap" ideas and words from others and passed them off as his own words and ideas. This is not the same as ascribing words to a person who actually said those words. And snce the dfirst section deals with th allegations, it is obvious to the majority here that such a section should be called "allegations of plagiarism" as that is what the section contains. "Apology" is sufficient for Hari's apology - since it clearly did not say "I plagiarized" - adding such an imputation is contrary to best BLP practice. Cheers. But thanks for pointing out that Blair was a substantially different case, and one where Blair did say he "plagiarized" [1], [2] The Times policy is against plagiarism period. The cases of Rick Bragg and Charlie LeDuff suggest different outcomes, [3] I thought there was no comparison, saying the cases were totally different. Blair's articles in 2002-3 were replete with fabrications and inventions, containing clear examples of plagiarism. It was on an altogether different scale from Hari's journalistic "crimes." Though the line might be thin between embellishment and plagiarising, I think it is possible to delineate one from the other. Seems that Greenslade of The Guardian sees the difference. Collect (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Try again"? Try again to read WP:EQ. Cheers!Straw Cat (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Straw Cat. I don't know why some people are expecting to base this article on quotes from Hari. The Independent article is a perfectly good reliable source. Collect, it doesn't matter if we don't have a direct quote from Johann Hari saying "I plagiarised" because it has been reported by a reliable source (that is also his employer) that he has admitted and apologised for it. It has been reported by a reliable third party source. It is verifiable. We would have very little information in BLP's if all the information had to be gathered from direct quotes from the subject of the article. - JRheic (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Straw Cat and JRheic. There is no support whatsoever in WP:BLP or WP:RS for regarding the personal blog of the subject of an article as a more reliable source than the news reports on the subject's actions and admissions. See also WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF. Yonmei (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The section with the allegations should be labelled "allegations." Any section with an apology should be labelled "apology" especially since he did not apologize for "plagiarism" directly, while Blair and others did accept that term. Claims referring to "plagiarism" would then reasonably fall into that section, without Wikipedia appearing to make any judgement other than using simple section titles. Section titles are not intended to be claims in their own right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some might like to note, as you quoted Greenslade, that he also calls it plagiarism: "Blair's was first degree plagiarism. Hari's was third degree" BearAllen (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Collect's two sources do not have a quote where Blair says he plagiarized. One doesn't mention it at all, and in the other he is asked a hypothetical question about plagiarism, to which he gives the response "It's hard to say. The Times' policy is against plagiarism period." There is an implicit admission of plagiarism in the exchange, but not explicit. I think you're getting rather close to being cute with sources. BearAllen (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Try

Oh ok, alright. Umm ...I worked at the New York Times as people know and uhh what most people know is that there was scandal that involved me plagiarizing and fabricating stories.

Direct quote. [4]. I trust this quote is not "cute" by half. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not for anyone else to look for your sources. If you want to use a source to support an assertion, please make sure the source says what you say it does, as is policy. BearAllen (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

L:And your lecture-mode post is grossly inapt, especially when I doubt any serious person would deny that Blair has used the word "plagiarism" to describe what he, himsel, did - which was a textbook example of taking others' words and ideas and claiming them as his own ("kidnap" is the meaning of "plagiarism" after all). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What on earth this has to do with anything is quite beyond me-WP:BLP has no requirement that the subject has to have admitted to a deed themselves for it to be included in a wikipedia article, the requirement is for a reliable source, which we most certainly have. Is anybody apart from user:collect argueing for this? If not, can we close this pointless discussion and move on? (*whirr*) cheers. (*robotic click*) FelixFelix ^talk 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, ah, it doesn't matter what your sources say because every one "knows" Blair is a plagiarist. Cut it out, you gave three sources in a row which did not say what you claimed. Either stick to the rules or stop quoting them to everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BearAllen (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There is now a substantial body of sources which identifies Hari's habit of "borrowing" juicy quotes from other interviews and putting them into his own interviews with various subjects as constituting plagiarism. Furthermore, Hari has form for the traditional definition of plagiarism as well. See here (re: Ann Leslie of the The Daily Mail) for example. It seems to me that if we beat about the bush on this then readers could be deceived into thinking that Hari may not have been guilty of plagiarism per se, when in fact he is "bang to rights", as it were. Jprw (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be in agreement, apart from 'Collect', who keeps on repeating the same bad arguments and refusing to engage properly with the views of others. Why does his lone, eccentric voice trump the consensus of the vast majority? SamuelSpade — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.175.204 (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[5] Jprw (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I spoke about this issue with Collect the other day. Here's what I said then: "It is not just a headline, it is the content of the article (e.g. "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") I am really struggling with your line of reasoning here. There are multiple reliable sources saying that he has admitted plagiarism, but it is your opinion that he has not. I was under the impression that sources trumped editors opinions. As it happens I think when he says "When this happened,...I would use those words instead." is an admittance of plagiarism. You clearly disagree. But the sources seem to be with me on this one ([12], [13], [14]) including his own paper." Polequant (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reduce the controversies section

At the moment the section "Journalistic controversy" is far too large and lends undue weight to the issue. I certainly think it is important and deserves its own section, but it dwarfs the rest of the article. It smacks too much of recentism with a pseudo-chronological organisation and so on. It needs to be summarised to retain the critical issues, but get rid of the "On 26th July.....", and separate sub-headings. At the moment it looks more like a news report than an encylopedia article. Polequant (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think the section could be given a more narrative form, doing away with all the headers but still giving an accurate run-down of all that happened. However, as to the size/weight of the section, the controversies are now likely the primary reason people have heard of him, and have overwhelmed the rest of his career. Whatever fantasy the Indie has concerning rehabilitating him, just look at some of the other journos caught telling porkies to see what they're remembered for. BearAllen (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to redraft the "Controversy" section to do away with the "recentism" and to put each issue in its own section - the plagiarism, the wikipedia editing, the withdrawal of the Orwell Prize (today the Council confirmed the plaque but not the prize money was returned and they would have withdrawn the Prize anyway). I've done my best not to remove any material - I think removal should be discussed on the Talk page first. Yonmei (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To my mind it looks an improvement, though the great list of names he had interviewed gives a long river of blue which makes it look like overlinking. Even if he was found to have "enhanced" all these interviews, there would still be no need to list them all. Perhaps the list could be summarised with a couple of examples. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I cut down the list, using two categories: really prominent people - Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Hugo Chavez, the Dalai Lama, Abu Hamza: and people whose interviews Hari is known to have fudged: Hugo Chavez, Malalai Joya, Ann Leslie, Gideon Levy, George Michael, Antonio Negri, and Gareth Thomas. Sorry, should have posted this edit comment here before, I got distracted by external events. Yonmei (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Controversy in lede

This is currently the part referring to the plagiarism controversy in the lede:

Following accusations of plagiarism and using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks on others in 2011, Hari was suspended from the The Independent while an investigation was carried out. Subsequently, he apologised for using quotes taken from other interviews and presenting them as his own and for malicious Wikipedia editing.

This seems a little wordy for the lede. Especially since it now appears to be consensus that we can simply refer to what he apologised for as 'plagiarism' per The Independent and the specifics of what happened are explained in the relevant section. I suggest we change it to:

In 2011, Hari was suspended from The Independent following accusations of professional misconduct. He later apologised for plagiarising and for using Wikipedia to make malicious attacks.

JRheic (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I see it's been changed already. Looks like you have to work fast on this page at the moment! I will substitute my wording anyway as I think it's slightly better. Revert and discuss if you disagree. - JRheic (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

His "apology" is dealt with in substantial detail in the body, and to simplify it as this lede did is not proper per ]]WP:BLP]]. He may be the most despicable journalist in the world, but that does not allow Wikipedia to short-circuit policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is it not proper? What specific part of WP:BLP are you referring to? My version is not simplifying, it simply goes into less detail and is more general. - JRheic (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Any claim in the lede must be explicitly backed by RS sources in the body. The wording must not "presume facts not in evidence" is one way to look at it. As far as I can tell, the body reasonably reflects the facts, but wording in the lede going beyond that is improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is backed up here in The Independent. It is extremely unhelpful to keep acting as if this hasn't been discussed when it has (see the discussion on this talk page entitled 'Headings', which you took part in). If you refuse to believe that the Independent article is a reliable source then please explain why. - JRheic (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Read Talk:Laurence Tribe for the views of others on almost the precise analogue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that that I would consider an analogue. We have a reliable source (not a blog post, as is the situation on the talk page you linked) that states 'Johann Hari, the writer and columnist for The Independent, has admitted plagiarism allegations' among other things. If you believe this material cannot be used then please explain why. - JRheic (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That really isn't a precise analogue at all. It's quite dissimilar in many ways. In fact, I'm surprised you consider them to be similar in any way other than they both spawned a debate about the word 'plagiarism'. BearAllen (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Glaring omission?

After reading this, it seems as though the article badly needs a section covering Hari's fabrications. Jprw (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It already has sufficient to indicate his problems. Ossa on Pelion wold not improve the BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with a new section entitled "Fabrications" is the lack of reliable sources backing up the accusations. With "Plagiarism", as we established by consensus, we have a huge amount of reliably-sourced material showing Hari's plagiarisms, and a direct admission by him that he committed plagiarism. We have no such sure evidence of fabrication, and I think adding a new section to the article ought to be left to the future, if reliable sources do publish accounts of material Hari can be shown to have invented. I also think the header for that first section ought to be simply "Plagiarism", but Collect wants me to change the entire article back to their last 15:50 edit and while I'm not minded to do so, neither I am minded to muddy the waters by making further edits at the mo. Yonmei (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"Fabrications" is actually more encompassing - including the allegations that he made up events in the Orwell Prize articles. Meanwhile read WP:AGF and WP:NPA as you appear to have elided those. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In many ways, the accusations that he's frequently made things up - incidents, things he claims to have seen, conveniently on-message comments from unnamed people he meets - is by far the most damaging accusation. A journalist who plagiarises is one thing, but one who simply makes things up is just dead. Problem is, even though some of it looks quite damning, neither he nor the paper have yet admitted it. You can use the reliable sources which report the accusations, just as long as you stay on the right side of what the source actually says. Wouldn't be surprised if that situation develops before long, though. BearAllen (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely - WP:BLP requires stronger sources than heretofore provided for some of the most damning claims. Problem is, the tendendency to report allegations as though they were proven fact. Collect (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a highly sensitive area, and the sources have to be bang on as the fabrications component of the misconduct was not admitted to. Nevertheless, re: headings, the wordings (simply) "Plagiarism" and "Allegations of fabricating material" are beginning to suggest themselves. For now I'll revert the word "fabrications" though. Jprw (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

German multiculturalism article

This blog post: [6] seems relevant to me, as it's by a left leaning writer who pretty comprehensively demolishes one of the articles Hari was awarded the Orwell prize for. I'd suggest referring to it in the Orwell Prize section. Unless there are strenuous objections I'll add it myself when the page is unprotected. --Merlinme (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is specifically mentioned by the Council for the Orwell Prize as the only article which they considered when deciding to remove the award from Hari, so I think it definitely needs to go in. [7] --Merlinme (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are specifically "notgood" in any BLP. They are never usable for facts, and rarely for "opinions" and then only when soured as the opinion of a notable person. Sorry -- WP:BLP is clear here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

? To take the most obvious example, The Daily Telegraph blogs are used extensively as references in the article. I was thinking of something like:

Later the Council confirmed that the Orwell Prize would have been withdrawn had Hari not returned it, following a ruling by the Council on 21 July 2011 that "the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell Prize-winning journalism" in Hari's article ‘How multiculturalism is betraying women’. The council also disclosed that Hari had not returned the prize money he received of 2000 pounds. Orwell prize nominee Hopi Sen has compared Hari's multicultural article to the Der Spiegel article it references, and criticised Hari for saying that the German legal cases highlighted all took place in the previous month, and for not making it clear that the rulings were overturned on appeal.

--Merlinme (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem facing people writing the Hari article is that journalists/newspapers generally don't want to turn on each other for fear of what they'll get in return. They prefer to do what Wiki does (for different reasons), which is to let other people do the dirty work and then report on the accusations, keeping their hands clean. As a result, most of the Hari stuff, whilst often very compelling, is primarily to be found on blogs or smaller internet publications which aren't considered RS.

That's an excellent piece of fisking, and highlights what I think is actually his most unpleasant fault as a journalist, but I think you're going to have a lot of trouble using any of it unless you can find a better source talking about it. Good luck, but err on the side of caution.

Telegraph blogs are different, by the way. They're not really blogs, just called that. They still have editorial control and are published by a reliable source. They're just columns given that name. It's not the same as a self-published blog at all BearAllen (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Similiar with blogs on the New Statesman or The Guardian - the blog writer is still required to submit material to editorial control. 135.196.125.15 (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if not the Telegraph blogs, what about the use of Jeremy Duns as a reference in the article? Who basically does the same sort of comparison to the original as Hopi Sen does. [8] I don't mind if the material goes in the Plagiarism section, but surely it's helpful to the reader to have slightly more detail on what exactly Hari did in the article which caused the Orwell Prize to be withdrawn. --Merlinme (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not go to WP:RS/N and see how well "blogspot.com" is regarded for being a "reliable source." Hint: You are unlikely to find anyone there refraining from laughter. If the writer is an "expert" you might get opinions found to be usable, but that is about it. So you might get "Jeremy Duns thinks Hari plagiarized" for all that is worth. Newspaper blogs under direct editorial control of a newspaper are allowed - but even there opinions can only be used as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Telegraph blogs are usually all right - they're not really blogs, they're just columns called blogs. Unlike most blogs, they have an editor, a sub, and the legal oversight of a newspaper. BearAllen (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is Jeremy Duns blogspot used as a reference twice in this article, then? But anyway, we could get most of what I want if a little more detail is included from the Council statement. E.g. "Later the Council confirmed that after reviewing one particular article, 'How multiculturalism is betraying women’, that the Orwell Prize would have been withdrawn had Hari not returned it, because: "The Council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies and conflated different parts of someone else’s story (specifically, a report in Der Spiegel). The Council ruled that the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell Prize-winning journalism." --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Where blogs have been linked to from the Plagiarism section of the article, it's because they were providing a direct comparison between on the one hand a previously published article by another journalist or interview subject, and on the other hand, an interview by Johann Hari in which he plagiarises the previously-published material. They're linked to as evidence of plagiarism, which they provide by linking to reliable sources and quoting from them, not because of the writers' views on Hari. Yonmei (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that BLPs should not rely on blogs as sources. I think you should reread: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). The only exceptions are newspaper blogs where the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. This is official Wikipedia policy - and is quite clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And yet. Collect, throughout your editing of this post, you have consistently argued that Hari's personal blog in which he "apologises" for plagiarism without using the word, is somehow an overriding source, so strong that it means we can't use the news report which says Hari admitted to and apologised for plagiarism. Care to explain that, while the page is protected from your edits against consensus? Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the UNLESS WRITTEN OR PUBLISHED BY THE SUBJECT? And I would note consensus can never over-ride WP:BLP. Cheers, and please try representing my positions a tad more accurately than you have in the past. Collect (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Collect, if you feel I've at any point misinterpreted anything you've said, but I'm not aware of it. In any case, I think you need to re-read WP:SELFPUBLISH, which allows "Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;." Your repeated assertion that a personal blog must override a news report has no basis in Wikipedia policy - to the contrary, it's Wikipolicy about self-published sources to not use them if they are self-serving - as Johann Hari's evasion of the word "Plagiarism" in his apology undoubtedly is. Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you asserting that the wording of his apology was "unduly self serving"? I suppose we could have an RfC on that argument. What is, moreover, clear is that the other blogs are not usable in this BLP. I had rather thought his own publishing of his apology was a reasonable source for what he wrote in his apology. Is there any reason to think he wrote an apology and wrote a different one for his blog? I would love to see any sort of source for that sort of allegation indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources which we could use to show that Hari's "apology", posted on his personal blog, is widely regarded as "unduly self-serving" - Jeff Bercovici, Forbes Staff writer, Bagehot, The Economist, Toby Young, The Telegraph, David Allen Green, New Statesman, Richard Seymour, The Guardian. Glad you asked - three of those sources are already linked to in the article, but we can add the other two on the 5th on the issue of "Hari's apology - unduly self-serving". Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now we've cleared that up, what do people think about the proposed expansion of the quote from the Council?

Later the Council confirmed that after reviewing one particular article, 'How multiculturalism is betraying women’, that the Orwell Prize would have been withdrawn had Hari not returned it, because: "The Council concluded that the article contained inaccuracies and conflated different parts of someone else’s story (specifically, a report in Der Spiegel). The Council ruled that the substantial use of unattributed and unacknowledged material did not meet the standards expected of Orwell Prize-winning journalism."

That is more or less how the Guardian recently reported it, for example: [9] --Merlinme (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The bit about self-published blogs means that you can't use an accusation in a blog unless it's made by the person themselves; essentially that if someone confesses to something in their self-published work you can use it. It doesn't mean that the absence of a confession in someone's self-published worked means that they did not confess somewhere else, or that it over-rides a reliable source for that confession. BearAllen (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I right to assume that silence means no-one objects to adding more detail to the Council quote, as given above? If so, I'll make a note to come back in a week and make the change (unless an obliging admin feels like doing it for me). --Merlinme (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Or it could be used to expand the Orwell Prize article. Yonmei (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you use what it says in the Guardian report and/or the statement from the Orwell Prize committee verbatim - and cite it - I don't think you have a problem. It would be tempting to cite the Liberal Conspiracy article as well to illustrate the point - and from the point of view of purely giving the comparisons of text, you might be justified - but I'm guessing there will be strong objections to that. BearAllen (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Any claim precisely sourced to the Guardian article should work for that particular issue. I am still shaking my head over the supposition that a person's blog is not usable for the apology the person wrote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

His blog is a perfectly good source for what he's apologized for. It's not a good source for what he's admitted to in the Indie investigation. The two are not the same. There is a good source to say he admitted plagiarism. There are none to say he apologized for it. BearAllen (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Collect, no-one has argued that Hari's blog is not usable, in fact we have used it. Your problem seems to be that we have used other sources aswell. I would also like to point out to no-one specific that Hari's blog post doesn't contradict the Independent source. There should be no question of one overriding the other because they don't contain contradictory information, they contain different information. The Independent says that Hari has admitted to and apologised for plagiarism, his not apologising for it in a blog post about the same subject would not amount to a denial or contradiction of that report. - JRheic (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BearAllen and JRheic. (I've asked Collect already to remember WP:PERSONAL.) We can't trust Hari's personal blog as an account of what he's done - for that we need strong reliable sources - but obviously his apology on his blog is a valid source for what he's apologised for, though for nothing more.Yonmei (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yonmei, in fact, has indeed argued that the Hari blog was unusable just above. Specifically as being "unduly self-serving." I trust you will find those comments just a few lines up on this page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested minor change

Can we change the link, in the second line of the Johann_Hari#Early_life section, for double first from [[First_class_honours#First_Class_Honours|double first]] to [[First_class_honours#Double_first-class_honours|double first]]? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC))

Now drawing the attention of administrators to implement uncontroversial change. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC))

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (Msrasnw (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from LikeLakers2, 29 September 2011

Null edit to purge cache and to remove from Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates, please. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

FIX: Apparently it is the pp-semi-blp template. Please remove that instead. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Page protected till 5 October 2011

If anyone's interested as to why, the discussion is here and the Page Protected decision is here. Yonmei (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of protection was due to your 6+ reverts in five hours, Yonmei. Your complaint about me was tossed as being invalid - not only did I not violate 3RR, 2 of my edits were per BLP and one was a compromise rewording removing nothing. Cheers - and next time use noticeboards for noticeboard stuff, and article talk pages for material directly pertaining to improving articles. Using each for the other purpose is outre. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep in mind WP:NPA, WP:NICE, WP:AGF, and of course WP:CONSENSUS. Also you might want to re-read WP:RELIABLE. Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh? From a person who even ignored the clearly written requirement that a warning be posted about any 3RR complaint? Who has repeatedly managed to miscite my positions in an errant manner, to say the least? And who fails to see that many of his own edits are not per WP:CONSENSUS? The risability of this is high. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try to keep in mind WP:NPA and WP:NICE. Otherwise yes, it may be necessary to involve an administrator. This page is, please remember, intended to discuss the Johann Hari page, not for your personal views on other editors. Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be just as well that the page has been blocked from editing, as it will give editors the chance to have a perhaps much-needed cooling-off period. Also, in a couple of weeks we should have a better perspective on sources and what they are saying. Jprw (talk) 05:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It also prevents those of us interested in improving and expanding the article, while abiding by policies, from doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications --- Writegeist (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Blackhurst interview

When we can edit the article again; see Chris Blackhurst… says paper's Johann Hari should hand back Orwell prize money Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting opinion piece - but of what specific relevance to Hari in a biography? We can find all sorts of opinions about people, but they rarely are notable enough per se to be relevant in a biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the relevance - either to Johann Hari or to the Orwell Prize - is the issue that Hari returned the plaque but not the £2000. Via Journalism.co.uk there's confirmation from Jean Seaton, the director of the Orwell Prize and a member of the Political Quarterly, that the Orwell Prize committee did ask Hari to return the money, and The Orwell Prize and Political Quarterly has "invited Hari to make a donation in the amount of the prize to press freedom charity English PEN". "The Orwell Prize council established to review Hari's prize – made up of the 2008 judges Annalena McAfee, Albert Scardino and Sir John Tusa – has decided to leave that year's prize vacant as a statement on Hari's actions." How important this is to the page on Hari (it may be worth instead recording it in a sub-section of the Orwell Prize page) is another matter, but the issue of the money not returned is worth referencing. Yonmei (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No, not an opinion piece; an interview with the man who is Hari's editor and manager, in which he says (my emboldening) "The editor said Hari was barred from doing interviews in the future", "The writer's work would be 'much more carefully checked' in future" and states that "he told Hari to hand back the Orwell Prize for journalism". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the article already states that he handed back the prize. The issue posited above was an opinion that he should also return the money. I suggest that this part (about the money) is then an "opinion" and not a "fact." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about the money? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See the very first sentence in this section (and, presumably, the topic of this section): When we can edit the article again; see Chris Blackhurst… says paper's Johann Hari should hand back Orwell prize money Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC) which quite apparently does dwell on the "money." Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to take that up with whoever at the Guardian chose the title of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian specifically ascribes it as an opinion - and thus Wikipedia can not do anything else - it is certainly not a "fact." And the "money" quote is the very last sentence in the piece. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian specifically ascribes what as an opinion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Having now read the interview, I agree with Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits that it contains several facts that should be added to the article (or to the Journalistic Controversies sub-article, if consensus decides on that): Chris Blackhurst as Hari's employer is a reliable source for when the Indy plans for Hari to return to work as a columnist (mid-February) and that the Indy has barred Hari from doing interviews. The issue about the Prize cash may have been resolved by the time the article is unprotected - according to the Orwell Prize Hari has contacted them, offered to pay back the money, and has been invited to make a donation to English PEN to that amount. Yonmei (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem when stuff is in the news, it all changes very quickly Polequant (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Separate article proposal

Perhaps a separate article dealing only with this controversy is warranted? Jprw (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's beginning to look that way. Several people have commented on how the "Journalistic Controversies" now overweighs the rest of the bio. Perhaps when the page is unprotected, a summary and link to the separate article, which could then expand as appropriate? Yonmei (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please no. That could easily end up being a POV fork. The problem is that we do not yet have the benefit of hindsight, and so we have no idea what the long term implications are and what weight to give this issue. From WP:UNDUE:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

The aim should be to present the facts in the most neutral way possible. We should avoid value judgements where possible, unless they are the wide consensus of reliable sources (for instance to me it is clear that RS consider that Hari has admitted plagiarism). At the moment the article says that Private Eye discovered his plagiarism in 2003. That is presented as fact, but we do not have reliable sources to back it up. Private Eye alleged that he done a few things, but the blog by damian thompson never mentions plagiarism, and is merely recounting what Private Eye have alleged without saying whether they are true or not (note how many times he uses the word "alleged"). I also consider blogs, even in national newspapers, to be inadequate for these sorts of allegations. If there is something even remotely controversial it should not be sourced to a blog, full stop (and that includes Hari's blog as well incidentally). Polequant (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point re splitting off a new article - maybe once it's all over (whenever that is!). The discovery of Hari's plagiarism is sourced to several blogs, and whether or not we link to the DSG blog (last seen referenced at the top of the bulleted list as "A small left-wing blog compared Hari's 2004 interview with Antonio Negri with Negri on Negri"), that's undoubtedly where the June 2011 controversy over his plagiarism got started, not in Private Eye.

The problem with the material on Hari's early life/career used to be that DavidR and his sockpuppets kept trying to hagiograph it up. Minus that effect, it should be possible to get the basic facts of the first ten years of his career in, and that seems worth doing.Yonmei (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Expansion of section - Early life and Career

Thoughts about expanding "early life" into "early life and career":

Hari was born in Glasgow and raised in London. Having attended fee-paying John Lyon School (affiliated to Harrow School) and Woodhouse College. After studying at King's College, Cambridge, he graduated with a double first in Social and Political Sciences in 2001. In 2000 he was joint winner of the Times Student News Journalist of the Year, gaining a six week work placement with Sky News. In 20nn he got a job at the New Statesman. He visited Iraq in December 2002. In 20nn he moved to The Independent. He visited the Central African Republic in October 2007.

Further facts needed in these areas:

1. When did Hari start working at the New Statesman?

2. When did Hari start working at the Independent?

3. Dates of any major overseas trips Hari took for his job. (Ie, the trip to the Central African Republic was October 2007, he went to Iraq in December 2002 - other?)

4. Various other newspapers/magazines are listed in the lede, but I don't think Hari ever worked directly for them, so we wouldn't need to include it.

5. We have a list of awards Hari won already so I don't think we need more about them?

Dates can be fixed from Hari's blog, I think - that's neutral, factual information for which a personal blog can be used. One thing that I think should be avoided is the DavidR pattern of calling out specific articles as "significant" or including disputes with other reporters/pundits. But two other things that might be worth including:

6. Hari was named on Private Eye's Hackwatch twice - and I read he's the only journalist to appear twice, which is interesting...

7. Hari threatened a blogger with libel action because the blogger accused him of making stuff up. If this can be properly sourced - ie not just to blogs but to published material with editorial oversight - that's notable. Yonmei (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Very few BLPs give such dates (like "essentially none"), and I see no reason that they would be of any substantial value here. Adding every possible factoid is not required by Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree: I think the year in which he started work at the New Statesman and the Independent are well worth including. I'm open to discussion about the dates of overseas trips! I think the Private Eye accusations are worth mentioning as a fact - they've been in and out of this biopage for years. Yonmei (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Cristina Odone article, edited by Hari, includes not only many dates, but all kinds of gossipy background information that was added by Hari and still hasn't been removed, such as the voodoo doll sentence, the background details of her resignation from New Statesman, etc. I've cleaned some of that article up, but in my opinion it should be whittled down much like the Nick Cohen article was after Hari's abuse of Wikipedia was discovered. Anyone sincerely interested in making a BLP article read like a professional encyclopedia article would be welcome at the Cristina Odone article to help fix Hari's still unfixed use of Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've taken out that reference but the article remains a mess. I agree that it (and perhaps any other WP bio Hari maligned/eulogised) should be reduced to a stub and started again from scratch, a la Cohen. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I've done more cleanup and removed two particularly appalling BLP violations where Odone was quoted as saying things that she actually didn't say, along with some slanted trivia that had been added by Hari. Goodness.... First Light (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it down even more; all sorts of borderline suspicious material. It's basically a stub now. Jprw (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

PS Looks like her article has been maligned since 2006. See here Jprw (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's when Johann Hari started editing that article, including adding long inflammatory quotes by himself.[10] One would think that with Wikipedia editors expressing their avid support of BLP policies that it wouldn't take five years for this to get cleaned up, what with the media attention also going back five years.... First Light (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The really sad thing is that it wasn't cleaned up even after the scandal broke. You'd think that WP would have set up a taskforce of some kind to address the problem, and systematically go through the articles Hari's socks had corrupted. Jprw (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone started collecting evidence (here) to allow his IP vandalism to be identified, but the page has been AFD'd twice now and the editor who made it has been threatened with SPI. So much for getting their house in order - they'd rather shoot the messenger than investigate the evidence the editor is presenting. He seems to have given up on the job as the page is not finished.

Another point already made elsewhere but perhaps missed here: Hari as David R archived a lot of the Johann Hari talk page archives. Has anyone gone back through to check that he didn't conveniently miss out anything that didn't suit him whilst so doing? It's easy enough to 'drop' stuff while cut and pasting etc. It'd still be in the history but not in the text as you look at it, which is where most people would look, rather than go through the edits one by one.86.152.23.139 (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to be the case - the amount archived = amount removed on 25 March 2008, which seems proper enough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall credibility

Is there any sign that the all of the article written by Hari are viewed as unreliable? It seems like the accusations were just that he had plagiarised some quotations, not that he had faked entire articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He also stands accused of making up quotes in his articles, making up entire incidents, and repeatedly distorting the truth (as well as creating an elaborate alter-ego with a detailed backstory for a five year campaign to libel and harass his colleagues). If you read the article above about the piece which won him the Orwell Prize or the CAR article you will get an idea of his form. He's been proven to be repeatedly dishonest, an almost compulsive liar, and, as so many of his articles rely on his word, and as he's been as opaque as possible about what he's actually admitting to and what he's done wrong, no one can really trust anything he's written. Some of the things he wrote were so blatantly ridiculous the Indie should be censured for publishing them. BearAllen (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He definitely "improved" quotes in interviews by adding material which was, indeed, written or said by the person to whom he attributed the quotes. AFAICT, he did not take anyone else's words and claim them as his own. The only "fabrication" issue in the sources given apears to be an incident used in the prize article. We do not have any definitive statement on whether he made up the incident. He may be a despicable journalist, but, last I checked, he is a "living person" and WP:BLP applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, he did not take anyone else's words and claim them as his own.

Collect you know that is not the case for at least the Ann Leslie article (e.g. see here). We shouldn't be having to go through this again. Jprw (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote - the example you give shows him using Leslie's words - and ascribing them to Leslie. See also the textbook definition of "plagiarism." AFAICT, he did not "kidnap" words and ideas and present them as his own. He used words and ideas of the ersatz ntervieweee, and presented them as though they had been freshly said to him. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Try reading what I wrote - the example you give shows him using Leslie's words - and ascribing them to Leslie.

No, there is more to it than that. The example I gave shows him using Leslie's written words (not spoken in an interview) and inserting them in his interview with her as though he had elicited them from Leslie. You seem to have failed to grasp this point. Jprw (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Read what I wrote: by adding material which was, indeed, written or said by the person to whom he attributed the quotes. Yep - he used the "written words" and I specifically said so. Cheers. Collect (talk)

I certainly agree with BearAllen (below) that it is high time we all moved on from this. Nevertheless, (one last time!) what Collect seems consistently unable to grasp is that Hari's habit of passing off quotes that others had elicited as quotes that he himself had elicited constitutes a plagiaristic practice. Jprw (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You asserted that I did not write what I clearly wrote. Hari is a despicable journalist, but the claim that my words above about how he misused words and the errant claim that I did not clearly state that he used the person's own words which were written is weird and outre. We can agree that Hari was a deispicable journalist, but accuracy in BLPs is essential no matter how horrid the person is. Is this reasonaly clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's really long after time to stop this ridiculous row about whether what Hari did in relation to quotes constitutes plagiarism. What either of you - or any of us - thinks meets the definition is irrelevant. A wide range of reliable sources describes it as plagiarism. Deciding for yourselves is tantamount to OR. Move on. BearAllen (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what prompted this thread is the fact that Jprw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been traveling the encyclopedia deleting statements attributed to Hari (check contribs) based on the claim that he fails WP:RS, not a concern about how this article should read. One place he did that was at Institute for Historical Review a truly loathsome organization about devoted to Holocaust denial. Hari claimed to have witness some unpleasant conduct at one of their meetings. Jrpw deleted the Hari qoute, Will Beback restored it and I re-deleted. Now I'm as uncomfortable as anyone else with deleting negative statements about an organization of Holocaust deniers, but Mr. Hari's recent troubles give me doubts that we can trust that he was ever present at the meeting or observed the behavior alleged. This may not be the appropriate venue for this discussion, but I think it merits being discussed somewhere. I suppose WP:RSN would be a good place. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Collect - you're quite right that many of those things cannot be definitively proven to the satisfaction of BLP, but that isn't the issue as no one is trying to put them in. The issue is whether or not Johann Hari's word alone is now a 'Reliable Source' for other articles. Can someone with such a history of deception be called 'reliable' with a straight face? Although, surely the place to discuss this is the RS noticeboard? BearAllen (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources noticeboard is the place, but for what it's worth, I wouldn't trust anything he said without independent verification. Needing independent verification is just a polite way of saying that he's an UnReliable Source. I'm mainly basing this on the most well researched incidents I'm aware of, i.e.: adding made up incidents and quotes to Wikipedia articles to attack his enemies; according to the only person present who spoke the language well enough to translate, completely making up a quote in an African story that "children would bring us the severed heads of their parents and scream for help"; plagiarising and butchering another article in such a biased way (saying that court cases which happened over five years had happened in the previous few months; not telling the reader that they were invariably overturned on appeal) as to leave the reader with none of the context of the original article and a deeply misleading impression of the issue described by the original article. --Merlinme (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

He is clearly not a Reliable Source, because he doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (per WP:RS), according to the third party articles written about him. It is an interesting question whether a journalist's unreliable Wikipedia writing, (under the pen name "David Rose" in his case) can be applied to that writer's real name. There is no precedent for that here. But since his Wikipedia 'journalism' is being covered by neutral and reliable sources in the context of his professional writing career, perhaps yes in this case. First Light (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Eye wonder who has considered CU on those edit-warring in Hari's favour

For those in the UK who read Private Eye, Johann Hari's plagiarism, and antics on Wikipedia, should make them most uncomfortable.

Issue 1298 lists a litany of plagiarism incidents, including - shall we say - "purloining" content from Der Spiegel. It also highlights the use of the David Ross pseudonym here on Wikipedia. Whilst that might seem painfully self-referential, it is now a fact cited by a well-respected publication.

A cursory review of this talk page, and the article history, reveals multiple other pseudonyms edit-warring for, and against, Hari. That the Eye states the Rose pseudonym's "many hundreds of edits shows that his overwhelming purpose was to spread lies about his enemies and promote himself" should make any sane person doubt that Hari has abandoned Wikipedia.

Why, then, are those most vocal in defending Hari not being subject to technical scrutiny to ensure they are not Hari himself, or socks operating out of the Indie offices intent on downplaying the fact that they continue to employ a proven plagiarist?

I'd place good money on my suspicions being well-founded. I'll provide scans of relevant Eye articles(for personal use) to any CheckUser bold enough to take up the challenge.

For amusement, who of those "wikilawyering" in Hari's defence (with undue weight arguments &c) can confidently say they've nothing to hide from a good CheckUser? --Brian McNeil /^talk 17:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations might be a better venue for this kind of thing. I agree that it's something to watch out for but this page is just for discussing changes to the article. - JRheic (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Threatening anyone that questions neutrality for sections of this article that they feel has undue weight with automatic scrutiny as sockpuppets runs counter to any consensus process. I looked into COI for the Rose account long before Hari's behaviour was put into question, I also repeatedly pushed (on this talk page) that we should not jump to conclusions before any firm evidence was supplied. This does not make me a candidate for CU and nobody has yet claimed that I might be Hari, let's leave such ways of thinking to conspiracy forums. Fæ (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Although it seems sensible to be aware of the possibility of sock puppetry, I agree with Fæ that it shouldn't be the first assumption for anyone who edits in his defence. In the limited time I've been watching this article I haven't seen anything which strikes me as grounds for suspecting sock puppetry. "Innocent people have nothing to fear" is all rather witch-hunt like. In any case I don't think you could get a CheckUser done without actual evidence. --Merlinme (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Trimming

This page remains a mess; I reckon that it needs fairly serious trimming-I'd suggest trimming the intro right back, I don't think that we need to know all the publications that his articles have been reprinted in. How about something like;

"Johann Hari (born 21 January 1979) is a British journalist and writer. He was a columnist for The Independent and the Huffington Post. In 2011, Hari was accused of plagarism and subsequently suspended from The Independent and stripped of his 2008 Orwell prize. He publicly apologised both for plagiarism and for making malicious wikipedia edits to articles of poeple that he had disagreements with. He has taken unpaid leave until 2012 and is going to undergo training in journalistic ethics."

The political and religious views section is bloated again, with pointless quotes and more tedium about his 'public disagreements'. I'd trim this right back too.FelixFelix ^talk 16:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Messy perhaps, but still an informative article has been written about a controversial subject. Agree that the article certainly doesn't need all the publications that his articles have been reprinted in etc, but in view of the, hopefully ceased, edit-warring, let's be careful in removing content where we've come to some kind of a consensus on wording. Straw Cat (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a "mess". Could use a little tidying, perhaps, but nothing more at the moment. I'm in favour of removing some of the publication names from the lead, so that we might say something along the lines of: "He was a columnist for The Independent and the Huffington Post, and contributed to several other publications." I think the rest of the lead is OK. Writegeist (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Writegeist's tidying. Are you suggesting that the "several other publications" also covers the next sentence, "He appeared regularly as an arts critic on the BBC Two programme the Review Show, and he was a book critic for Slate."? I think it should. The BBC thing, and even most of those other publications, are entirely unsourced and don't appear anywhere in the body of the article. The lede should only be a review of the article itself, and then only the most notable parts, so the tidied portions should then get moved down into the Career section, and referenced. First Light (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Writegeist (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Felix-felix's version of the lede probably goes a bit far, for example he technically wasn't stripped of his Orwell prize. That should probably be reverted, and then yeah I agree about the publication names issue. - JRheic (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleting reference Nick Cohen doesn't like

I reverted an edit Jprw made with the comment "removing ref; contains accusation against Cohen that Cohen has protested against". The reference in the article is used to support the Hari quote in the sentence 'He credited Noam Chomsky's condemnation of support for the Iraq war as having "helped me figure out where I had gone so badly wrong".' Note Cohen is not even mentioned in the sentence which is being referenced, so I struggle to see how there can be a BLP issue here. Cohen is only mentioned in the following paragraph of the referenced Hari article:

'To pluck one example, the leftist-turned-neoconservative journalist Nick Cohen has accused Chomsky of being soft on jihadism (as well as of "not being bothered" by "the crimes of Adolf Hitler"). Yet Chomsky points out that an analysis of official data for the government-supported RAND corporation found that the invasion of Iraq caused a "seven-fold increase in jihadism." If you really hate jihadism, you have to figure out what actually reduces it, rather than engage in bluster. Chomsky supported the path that produces fewer jihadis, while Cohen supports the path that produces more.'

This may all be utter rubbish, I have no idea, but the only relevant fact is whether it supports the Hari quote, which as far as I can see, it clearly does. To remove a reference because one irrelevant paragraph contains something which might or might not be objected to by someone, and which isn't even mentioned, even indirectly, in the Wikipedia article, seems like taking BLP paranoia to a truly ludicrous level. --Merlinme (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Cohen never attributed "not being bothered by the crimes of Adolf Hitler" to Chomsky. Do we want to use sources that contain such malicious lies? Jprw (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, if the source supports the claim actually being referenced, i.e. Hari's words, which are nothing whatsoever to do with the bit Cohen doesn't like. --Merlinme (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if it is a primary source likely added by a Hari sock? Are you sure the article isn't better off without it? What salient new info does it bring to the article which is so essential that it outweighs all these rather disturbing aspects? Jprw (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with using that quote and its source. Even regarding your concerns, I suspect that the tiny number of people reading through this article and clicking on that link will get the big picture by then. I would like to propose that the "Journalistic controversy" section be moved up and the "Political and religious views" section be moved down, since he's far more notable now for the former. First Light (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if we put all these concerns to one side, how important is it in the overall scope of his career -- isn't it enough to say that he changed his mind on Iraq? It also smacks of self-aggrandizement, along the lines of "great writer Hari sees the folly of his ways thanks to great thinker Chomsky", etc. Jprw (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point now. User Felix-felix has deleted it anyway on the basis that it was overly wordy. I thought it was a bit cheeky of him to do it without discussing first, as he very nearly repeated your edit, but I can live with the change. It is more concise. --Merlinme (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Overall it seems there were big question marks over the advisability of including such a reference. Jprw (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I always thought the Chomsky remark stuck out as self-serving and thought it didn't really belong. It makes it sound as if there was some huge philosophical debate, a meeting of great minds, but even just reading Hari's own self-serving article on why he changed his mind, the broad thrust is that it had become inescapable that the Americans had created a disaster and you could no longer defend the Iraq invasion with a straight face. Let's not try to dress it up as if only the world's greatest minds could see what was wrong with Hari's position when he says himself that watching the news was evidence enough. BearAllen (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

People being briefly arrested

How about the bit about Kumar and Sinha of The Statesman being briefly arrested in India? It's not even mentioned on Ravindra Kumar's page, and it seems pretty spurious-I reckon it should go too; I'll sort it out tomorrow, unless anyone's got a compelling argument for it remaining...FelixFelix ^talk 07:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, lose it, as far as I'm concerned. I'd be quite happy to see the whole 'Political and Religious views' section gone, too. It's only really there because Hari so desperately pushed the idea that his views on everything were very, very important, and somehow encyclopaedic. Put in to perspective, he's a pretty obscure failed journalist who is now only really of note for the recent scandal. BearAllen (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally off-topic - I was thinking of losing it myself, and just did (along with the fact that The Statesman actually republished an article by Hari, which isn't extremely notable). First Light (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Writegeist (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In fat, I reckon the whole section could be condensed to:

"Hari has broadly progressive political views,[3] and is sympathetic to the environmental movement.[4] He also espouses republicanism and a number of classical liberal positions, such as drug legalisation[5] and gay rights.[6] He is a secularist and atheist.[12]

Hari supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq,[7] basing this not on the evidence for WMD[8] but on a visit to Iraq in December 2002[9] and a March 2003 story by Kenneth Joseph.[10] In 2006 he reversed his position, to oppose the war.[11]"

Except of course with the refs in the correct order...FelixFelix ^talk 08:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"pretty obscure failed journalist" is rather strong. Until recently he was a rising star for a whole swathe of the British left, hence the Amnesty, Stonewall, Orwell, environmental etc. awards. I've no objection to trimming the article, but let's remember that he was considered noteworthy before the scandal.

Incidentally the whole Kenneth Joseph thing is murky, to say the least, although I don't know if we want to go into it in this article. --Merlinme (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 'before' bit is rather crucial. Taking a look at any of the other journalists caught up in anything similar in the past is a good illustration of the perspective time gives. The scandal becomes the thing of note. When a journalist's credibility has been so utterly destroyed, their opinions on the environment or the Pope, or whatever, become rather irrelevant. Also, there are very few journalists who aren't fairly obscure outside of their bubble, but if you look at the article of a genuinely noteworthy, even iconic, journalist - Bob Woodward - it doesn't mention his politics, his religion, his opinions about anything. It just details his career. Given that opinion-piece writers spout opinions on virtually everything, by the very nature of their job, and every opinion writer had an opinion on Iraq, I don't think it's particularly noteworthy, but I'll not delete it if people feel terribly attached. BearAllen (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, but of course we can't know what perspective time will give. It may be that he manages to reinvent himself in some way, I'd be quite surprised if he didn't to be honest, his articles are well-written if you ignore the minor detail that he plagiarises and makes a significant amount up. I had a quick look at Nick Cohen for comparison; that article mentions various left wing projects he's been involved in, and it mentions that he's an atheist. It's not immediately obvious that Hari is broadly left-wing, so I don't think three lines describing his political beliefs are a waste of space. The significant thing about his opinion on the Iraq war was that he changed his mind, which was relatively unusual. --Merlinme (talk) 08:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I like FF's edit, and although I share Merlinme's apparent reservation about the Kenneth Joseph ref. it may be the best we can do for now. Do we need the WMD ref? Could we just say Based on a visit to Iraq in December 2009 [cite] and a March 2003 story by Kenneth Joseph [cite], Hari supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq [cite]. In 2006 he reversed his position, to oppose the war.[cite] ? Writegeist (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me, although you've typoed 2009/ 2002. I suggest you could be WP:BOLD for this kind of fairly uncontroversial copy editing. --Merlinme (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the typo. Having read BearAllen's post above, I'd like to see the whole section removed. Writegeist (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories; Political views section

Categories The article makes no mention of Hari's sexual orientation, yet he is included in Gay writers, LGBT journalists and LGBT writers from the United Kingdom. There is no RS-supported statement of his atheism in the article, yet he is included in Atheism activists and British atheists. Should he be removed from these categories?

Political views "Hari has broadly progressive political views" is not supported by the cite. The cite for his espousal of gay rights is a dead link. Ditto "He is a secularist and atheist". Deleting these bits might improve the article. Thoughts? Writegeist (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It winds me up slightly when people delete material because of WP:Dead links. At absolutely no point in that page does it say "delete the material which is no longer supported". The correct course of action is where possible to find a suitable replacement. Hari is an atheist: see e.g. [11]: "I’m one of the token atheists on the show" (note use of I); and he is gay: see e.g. [12]: "It might seem paradoxical at first, but I think one reason gay men are disproportionately unhappy is because, from the moment as teenagers we first gaze upon the frenetic dancing blur of gay culture, we are encouraged to be relentless pleasure-seekers." (note use of "we").

If you think the information is not needed in the article, please say that, but please don't use dead links as a reason to delete content or remove categories.

I agree that the cite for "progressive political views" rather tangentially supports the claim that he is a progressive, which is a pretty vague term anyway. I would be happy to see that deleted and sticking to the much more specific and supported claims on environmentalism, drug legalisation. --Merlinme (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the links to Hari's blog. Writegeist (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Merlinme, keep in mind that as a Biography of a Living Person, the standards for sourcing are much higher. WP:BLP is what applies here: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That essentially does say that we should delete any material that is not sourced, if it is remotely controversial. Don't get wound up over that, even slightly :-) (as I do when people ignore WP:BLP). So, thanks for the links from Hari's blog concerning those points. First Light (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point; the first response of a Wikipedia editor on seeing a dead link should be to find a reference which supports the previously supported claim, not to delete the content. If you can't find a reference, then by all means raise it on the talk page to see if anyone else can vouch for the now dead link, or knows how to get a working reference. It didn't take me very long to get hits by putting in "Johann Hari atheist" and "Johann Hari gay", including to his blog (which I've cited above). The current dead link in fact points to his blog, just not to a valid page.

I recognise the standards for sourcing in BLP are higher, but I still don't think that excuses making a basic effort to fix a dead link (often the article is still available on the same website but the name has changed slightly) and if that fails, to do a quick websearch to find any alternative reliable sources.--Merlinme (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've often done exactly what you did, finding a new reference for deleted information, which is why I expressed my thanks (please re-read my comment above). But WP:BLP says unreferenced content that might be controversial should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". That is clear and unequivocal. The editor who removes such information (not that anything was even removed in this case) doesn't owe it to anyone to find a new reference. Yes, I do get wound up about following WP:BLP policy :-). First Light (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But it was referenced. That's the whole point of a dead link. Unless there is some reason to believe the link was never good, the material should not be deleted, instead a basic effort should be made to fix the link, which if the link was good in the first place, normally takes me about half an hour. There is absolutely no need to delete material which a quick web search shows to be accurate; it's trivial to use a different reliable source if necessary. Failed verification- ok, fine, delete that content as the link was clearly not a good one anyway. But don't just delete stuff which is true, and was correctly cited, but is no longer correctly cited because of link rot.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about here, so I'll leave it at that.--Merlinme (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)