Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 3 June 2014 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Johann Hari) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions about Johann Hari. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Picture

I see there's been a bit of disagrement on which picture of Hari to use. For the record, I think that the pic that user:Stevehorowitz used is better, for the same reasons that I liked it when I argued for it going in against dave rose/Hari. Of course, we could have both pictures. What do we all think?FelixFelix 09:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind sticking 2 pictures in but the current image is far better technically (no blown highlight etc), and shows his features better. You can barely tell that the other one actually is Hari. The argument that was had previously was different because rose/hari was arguing to use a non-free image instead of the free one.

I am also a little bit wary that it could come across as trying to spite Hari. He clearly didn't like the photo, but now he's been found out doesn't mean we should necessarily ignore his feelings. If this was anyone else with alternative free images we would normally pay some heed to the subject of the article's wishes. Polequant (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Polequant regarding the terrible quality of the photo that User:Stevehorowitz was trying to substitute with. Extreme blown highlights all over the place, poorer resolution, profile view which is not very representative of Hari or typical of other bio images. I don't see any reason to have such a poor image in this article at all, even if it is a second image. The fact that Hari himself doesn't like it is irrelevant. It's just an awful image, and would be so for anyone, because of the poor quality and composition. Here are the two photos for comparison:

First Light (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not that bad, I think that calling it awful is a bit much-it is him, and it shows him working, which is quite nice-there are plenty of worse pics on WP. and have been much worse ones of Hari on this page (the unrecognisable one of him on a Greenpeace platform springs to mind).FelixFelix 16:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but "it's not that bad" is certainly not a reason to choose a photo. Rather the reverse, if a better one exists. --Merlinme (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Felix, that photo is awful. As a photographer with several (plant) photos on Misplaced Pages articles, I would be embarrassed to upload such a poor quality image, especially when there are better ones available. If there is going to be a second photo, let's put back the publicity shot that used to be in the infobox, as a second photo in the article. First Light (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that given that it was the unscrupulous Hari himself who lied about and removed the photograph, it is all the more important we assert the independence of Misplaced Pages and use it to defy his attempts to silence it. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more of the latest objectors were not a new sockpuppet. Stevehorowitz (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And there we seem to have the motivation for the picture change. Thanks for proving my point. And if you suspect sockpuppets please go to WP:SPI. Polequant (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, you're asserting we might be sock puppets because we don't like a bad photo? At least in my case, a two and a half second look at my contribution history would surely put paid to that idea. As far as "asserting the independence of Misplaced Pages", I really don't see how including a not very good photo to make a point does that. --Merlinme (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, a look at my edits would also show that I'm clearly not a supporter of Hari. I am a supporter of Misplaced Pages, and a ridiculously poor quality image makes Misplaced Pages look ridiculous. Other neutral and longtime editors here agree. First Light (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the photo on the left looks like Johann Hari, doing a job. The one on the right looks like Russell T Davies stealing yet more ideas for his Doctor Who reboot. There's no question that the left photo is better. doktorb _words 16:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded.FelixFelix 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dubious intro

I see pro-Hari revisionism is creeping back into this entry. I have therefore revised the intro to better reflect the actual state of affairs. I leave it to other more proficient wiki editors to redress the balance of the rest of the article: why is so much top space given to discussions of Hari's school, birthplace and the topics he writes about, pushing the most important and notable features of his career - plagiarism and deception - well down to the bottom of the page? Compare the Jayson Blair page, another disgraced journalist.

The article currently states:

In 2011, Hari was accused of plagiarism;

The use of accused in this context is clearly an innuendo to suggest "pending". When in fact he is a plagiarist and that has been confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.205.178 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If you carry on reading you will see that there is no innuendo. It describes a sequence of events - First he was accused, then he was suspended from the Independent (whilst they did their investigation) etc, and then he apologised. I don't see how anyone could have any doubt about whether had plagiarised after reading the introduction. If you think it could be better worded please feel free to suggest something. Polequant (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed it so that the lede cuts to the chase ("admitted to plagiarism"), rather than describing the sequence of events, since the sequential detail is provided in the body of the article, where it should be. First Light (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not too sure about that. The start of the following sentence is then a repetition of the same thing. To my mind it also confuses how it all happened. Will have a think about how it can be better phrased. Polequant (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP was pointing out, rightfully so, that the prominence in the lede of "accused" made it sound like it was just an accusation. The lede does need to cut to the chase, since Hari is notable because he did plagiarize, not because he was accused of plagiarizing. Yes, the next sentence perhaps doesn't need to say that he also apologized for plagiarism. First Light (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It didn't read like that to me at all. I don't agree with the lead 'cutting to the chase' - you only had to read the next sentence! A lead should be brief, but your changes didn't make it any briefer, but rather confuses the sequence of things. Now it sounds like he owned up to plagiarism, but actually part of the story is that he didn't own up to it at first. Polequant (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Then it should say that he didn't own up to it at first - better to be too clear than too brief. And the most notable feature of it all is that he practiced and admitted plagiarism, just as an accused criminal who was eventually convicted would start out by saying the person was convicted of x crime, not that they were accused of x crime. I'm open to ideas, of course, but I understand the IP's confusion. I've given it another try, because the IP has a valid point, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:David Rose (disambiguation)

There's a discussion concerning Johann Hari over at Talk:David Rose (disambiguation), which people watching this page might be able to help with -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Labelling

See WP:BLPCAT:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

At this point, I have not found a source for Hari specifically self-identifying as "LGBT" which means that "outside lists" so labelling him are not sufficient per Misplaced Pages policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is one of many, in this case from the opening of a piece by Hari for The Huffington Post now cited in the article:

This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism.

Philip Cross (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to see one now being furnished - I trust you see why such a source is required. Collect (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Introductory section

The intro to this article is ridiculous. The first line lauds Hari's "successful, award winning career" when his career is now in the toilet, and he's been obliged to hand many of his awards back. I have removed this claim, however I leave it to more experienced Wikipedians to fix the rest of this article, which seems to go to extraordinary lengths to hide the known details of Hari's dishonesty below a lot of fluff about which school he went to. Only when you read to the end of the page, well below the fold, does the scale of Hari's dishonesty become apparent. Contrast the Jayson Blair entry (another fabricating journalist.) Hari's offences also include the protracted gaming of Misplaced Pages using sockpuppets on his own page and elsewhere. Surely Misplaced Pages now has a responsibility to redress the partiality of this entire entry. 1.4.148.11 (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. We have an obligation to obey both. Hari might be Satan incarnate, but we are bound by the very foundations of Misplaced Pages to follow the policies named. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I added the "successful, award-winning career" ref as, prior to the scandal breaking, Hari was probably the most decorated and successful young journalist in Britain. A sort of "wunderkind" in the trade. Which made his fall all the more sensational. These are the key ideas of his career which need to be reflected in the lead. Jprw (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the fluff in the first sentence - there are far more notable and real award-winning authors who aren't defined that way in the first sentence of their bio articles. See Thomas Friedman (three Pulitzers) and Fareed Zakaria (Padma Bhushan) for a couple of examples of journalist who have won truly notable awards. If anything, the first sentence should be the main way that they are perceived. Right now it's simply as a British journalist, similar to the two examples I mentioned. If you google news articles from the last year, you see "disgraced" more commonly used than "award-winning." I'm not going to edit-war over it, but a compromise might be that he "had a successful, award-winning career before admitting to plagiarism, etc." Or to add the positive stuff in the context of the following sentences. That's all I'll say, as this isn't as important to me as it seems to be to others. First Light (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First Light's suggestion of "Successful ?award winning? career before admitting to plagiarism", with or without the words "award winning", looks a reasonable approach to me. Some editors have suggested that the lead should concentrate more on what he is notable for, i.e. plagiarism. However that seems harsh; he was notable well before the plagiarism accusations, and I certainly don't think the lead should focus on those accusations to the exclusion of everything else. --Merlinme (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Have reworded so that the first sentence in the lead includes both the awards and the downfall. Straw Cat (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the fluff from the lede again-it's completely redundant, and somewhat subjective. His career before his fall is adequately detailed in the text; this article has chronically and fairly shamefully gathered fluff throughout its career, lets keep it crisp, concise and factual.FelixFelix 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

But is it redundant? Hari is primarily known for two things: 1) being the rising star (wunderkind / enfant terrible, take your pick) of UK journalism, various awards being showered on him by various organisations, etc. and 2) having his career cut short by scandal. The trouble with the revised wording is that 1) above is not reflected. Jprw (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Added your "rising star" bit followed by his subsequent downfall (not to sound too dramatic). I also switched from the "akward voice" to the passive voice - there is no reason for him to "be suspended from" and "surrender his award" in the same clause when he can suffer both actions and "be stripped of" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.199.3 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the earlier version. First of all, "praise and recognition at an early age" makes him sound like some 5-year old journalism savant. And "earned" is rather self-serving and not exactly neutral. He is most notable for the plagiarism and attacks - that should be mentioned first, front and center, rather than "He earned praise and recognition at an early age." First Light (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I streamlined it to "Following early success..." and put the suspensions first after that, since they more clearly address that early success and the mention in the first sentence of being a columnist at The Independent. First Light (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to give heed to the calls for having both his ascent and descent in the lede. I think "early success" is just as self-serving as "earned"; perhaps "received recognition" would be more neutral as it does not imply he deserved or conquered it. But I can live with your changes, I think it is better now, so I will leave it up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.199.3 (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it as is, and let others give their opinion on this, since this well-watched page has traditionally worked with the consensus of more than one or two editors. First Light (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)