Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Red Harvest (talk | contribs) at 23:25, 14 April 2015 (→There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Misplaced Pages infoboxes.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Hari article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Johann Hari article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. David r from meth productions (talk · contribs) / Johann Hari / Template:Connected contributor This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "We Lefties shouldn't be so quick to forgive Johann Hari". The Daily Telegraph. 19 September 2011. Far more damaging, to my mind, than the plagiarism (and it is plagiarism, whether third degree, first degree, or plagiarism by misadventure) is the "sockpuppetry" – internet slang for creating a false identity online for deceitful purposes. Hari created at least one such identity on Misplaced Pages and elsewhere, called David Rose. This Rose repeatedly edited out those parts of Hari's Misplaced Pages entry that he didn't like, and those of various heroes and friends of his.

Does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion?

Concerning this edit, does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion? I Think it does. Does it tell the reader something that ""Religion: None" does not? I think it doesn't.

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• The religion is "none". The explanation is "atheism". Some may treat atheism as a religion on a personal level, but I haven't seen us do so here on a professional level, particularly since "atheism" is a very broad category that encompasses many different viewpoints with only one common aspect. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. I do not think atheism is a religion, but I don't think the article implies that it is. I struggle to see how the word "None" could be misunderstand. However "None (atheist) gives information that "None" does not; the obvious alternative would be agnostic, there may well be other varieties of non-belief that Hari (or anyone else) could have. Atheism is a particular type of no religion, and I think it gives useful information here. --Merlinme (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agnostic ≠ atheist. Atheism is the certainty that deities do not exist. Agnosticism is either the uncertainly of the existence of one or more deities, or sometimes, stated apathy about the subject matter as a whole. Very different philosophies: One is a fixed belief, the other is not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case I wasn't clear, I think agnosticism and atheism are separate types of non-religion, which is exactly why I think "None (atheist)" provides useful information about Hari's type of non-religion. Speaking as an atheist, I get mildly annoyed when people insist that I must be an agnostic! --Merlinme (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• The question is not whether the article should make such fine distinctions, but rather whether the infobox should. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance... Wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." This isn't the first article where good-faith editors who have been working on it want to cram as much information as possible into the infobox, and it won't be the last, but whenever someone cares enough about it to post an RfC, the decision is usually that the article should clearly explain such distinctions and that the infobox should either have the one-word less-specific version or perhaps not have the infobox at all. So I ask the following question, again lifted from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article?" --Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One additional explanatory word looks fine to me as "summary information". Hari has clearly identified himself as atheist, and it informs his work. So in other words, it is a key fact which appears in the article. --Merlinme (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Weighting of article

I believe this article is extremely poor at the moment, and contains little informative information about Hari's career, and an overwhelming amount of information regarding the journalistic controversy. Misplaced Pages BLP is quite clear concerning material on controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons): "Misplaced Pages articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved"

At the moment the article has grossly imbalanced weighting towards controversy - the section on criticism of Hari's apology alone is the same length as the section on Hari's entire career. Based on word count alone in the main body of the article, 82% of the article concerns controversy and 18% on everything else to do with Hari. Hari has had a career in journalism and in the public eye for well over a decade, and more needs to be included on this, and less on the controversy.

The reason I am making this posting before making any edits is that this has been a controversial page in the past, and one that many editors seem to feel quite strongly about. I think opening a dialogue here is an important step towards improving the article, and deciding a proper weighting for the controversy section. I would appreciate input from other interested editors, particularly on how to improve the article in general, and specifically on the key features of the controversy to include, and events in Hari's career to include. Atshal (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hari was editing this page himself to increase the entry content about his journalism. Many (actual) editors thought this was already too much for an otherwise undistinguished op-ed column writer. Post 'controversy' Hari is mainly notable for his journalistic (and WP) malpractice. This, in my opinion, is what should be the main focus of this page.FelixFelix 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The current weighting clearly violates BLP policy. The page reads like an article on that particular controversy rather than an article on Johann Hari. Either the content needs to be moved to a separate page on the incident, or needs to be deleted. The fact that Johann Hari previously edited this page is irrelevant. Atshal (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous editors would disagree with you, and BLP has been hotly discussed on this article over 7 (now archived) talk pages. Hari is now chiefly notable for his journalistic malpractice, and secondarily for his WP shenanigans. These need to retain a central place in the article about him. FelixFelix 17:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/Jayson_Blair or https://en.wikipedia.org/Stephen_Glass artidles. Are they improperly weighted? Perhaps the subhead "Controversy" is a problem, suggesting that his "retirement" and the reasons for it were controversial and disputed. That was not how I recall the consensus about it. The other articles use terms like "affair" and "aftermath" - perhaps less POV. But this was one of the great journalism scandals in recent history and the article properly reflects that. Straw Cat (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Apology

Not sure why this section got deeted without discussion; Hari's apology was, and remains weasley, and it was criticised prominently. This remains worthy of inclusion in this article.FelixFelix

I "deeted" it as being UNDUE. We cover Hari's sins at length and in detail, and to give a section on "we still hate the guy" is not only Ossa on Pelion, it is contrary to WP:BLP as it is not neutral in nature nor tone, is aimed at causing harm to the subject of the biography, and invites "criticism of criticism of ..." sections in biographies where "criticism sections" are considered ill-formed. I know you find the person "weasley" but that is not why we write articles - our task is to abide by policies and guidelines and making sure every readers knows a person is "weasley" is not what we do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect! The section does certainly not violate BLP, as I'm sure you're aware. It's cited, from independent sources, and concerns the most notable period of Hari's career. Therefore I'm restoring it again, please don't 'deet' again without achieving consensus here first. 'Cheers'!FelixFelix 10:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It violates UNDUE, it presents trivia as being important, and is not neutral in tone nor content. Three reaspns. Cheers. ASK at an RfC before making this addition again. Collect (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't violate UNDUE; it's not trivia and reporting properly cited text by prominent journalists is neutral. So your three 'reaspns" aren't so great. Removing citaed material from a WP article without consensus (RfC still inprogress) is bad, Collect, hence my restore.FelixFelix 12:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note the onus is on you for gaining consensus for the addition of the criticism, not on people properly following WP:BLP to remove UNDUE material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is an extended section on "Criticism of apology" proper in this BLP? 12:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

discussion

The section is UNDUE, is trivia, is clearly written in a non-neutral manner, and is not even a "criticism of (person)" section which is generally deprecated in the first place. The current BLP goes into substantial detail about the sins of the person, but "criticism of apology" is a full step past what is reasonable per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. (However, sections dedicated to negative material may violate the NPOV policy and may be a troll magnet, which can be harmful ) Where a "criticism section" in an article which already has substantial "criticism" in it, the use of a "criticism of apology" section is clearly pushing the NPOV envelope to the bursting point. More than 90% of the BLP is currently critical of this abhorrent person, which is already past sufficient. Collect (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree, the issue of Hari's plagiarism and his malicious wikipedia editing are the most notable things about his journalistic career, and a number of notable independent sources criticised his apology, as it was far from complete; the section that Collect has been unilaterally deleting details this. Hari has recently released a book to much media attention, some of which focuses on the plagiarism and wikipedia scandal. A full account of that in his wikipedia page is therefore helpful to the interested reader and currently relevant. The suggestion that the section violates either NPOV (including UNDUE) or BLP is patently absurd, as even a cursory reading of either of these policies will confirm. Hari is not abhorrent, but this WP page is there to inform the interested reader about the notable events in his public life, and this is the core of it, like it or not.FelixFelix 10:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Currently the BLP is more than sufficiently weighted to show "the issue of Hari's plagiarism and his malicious wikipedia editing ." In fact, the vast majority of the BLP seems aimed at particularly making sure the reader gets the point by making the article almost entirely about how evil the person is. Alas, the policy requires that we use a "neutral point of view" and on policy grounds we already grossly overweight our pointing out how absolutely atrocious Hari is. Or, if he is not so horrid, then our article is even further already well past the limits required by the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note further that the material is clearly contentious in nature, and thus its addition requires an actual poisitve consensus here per policy. Collect (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Improper Fact is that Hari apologized, which is stated in the proper section. The "reactions" to his apolgy are not something that he did. Bios should contain what the person was or did. What other people thought about the subject is interesting in a historical context, especially in the case of great personages who have influenced History. In this case, the bashing of Hari is POV and UNDUEWEIGHT and needs not be added. Here the deleted section serves as a WP:COATRACK to hang dirty laundry on it. We must draw a line somewhere to avoid that this encyclopedia becomes an internet garbage dump. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Cut down section substantially I think it is appropriate to briefly discuss how Hari's apology was received, using one or two of the most significant examples. All those articles were written about him after all, and if his apology generated significant activity in reliable sources then we can report that. However, four paragraphs is too much, and it doesn't need its own section. I would have thought one or two sentences at the end of the apology section, along the lines of "Hari's apology was criticised by other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him", and reference maybe David Allen Green and Toby Young as two of the more significant names to criticize him. (And I don't have a problem with giving Hari's response to the response, provided he made one and it contains any substance.) An entire section of four paragraphs is far too much, however, especially bearing in mind every single one of the criticisms seems to come from the blogs section of those newspapers, rather then making it into editorial or a main newspaper article. --Merlinme (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   The BLP already has Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was publicly criticised. which would appear to indicate that none of the new section is utile. Collect (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   A fair point. I would therefore change that sentence to something like: "Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was criticised by some other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him." I believe that's a reasonable summary of what people were mainly complaining about. I would then delete the "Criticism of apology" section.--Merlinme (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   Actually, I might move that and possibly some other sentences around a bit to fit the sections better. But the important point is that I think the appropriate amount of space for criticism of the apology is one or two sentences. --Merlinme (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

   A single relative clause like "but his apology was criticised by other British journalists for not fully answering the charges made against him" sounds reasonable, as a compromise, to be appended to the text. But I'm afraid somebody will then add fifty sources, so that the reader can get linked to the bashing, which would still be a questionable state of things in a BLP. Kraxler (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

   That sounds OK to me.FelixFelix 10:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

   We already have Hari apologised for his actions, although that apology was publicly criticised. in this article at the start of the "Plagiarism and Misplaced Pages scandal" so why add the same sentence twice? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Agree with deletion of section. Yes, this is a guy who did something unethical, got busted and publicly apologized. An additional section devoted to people's opinions on the apology itself is excessive. If he got caught on tape saying "Ha ha I'm not really sorry!" or "I'm only sorry I got caught" etc, then criticism of the apology would seem warranted. The compromise sentence doesn't ruffle my feathers too much, as long as it's basically a sentence. Wikimandia (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: Per WP:BLP restoring the material at issue requires a positive consensus. The proper weight is being discussed, and such matters fall into a category of "contested edit". Collect (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Summoned here by RfC bot. Honestly, this article made my skin crawl. Not only is the subsection in question over-weighted, and properly removed, but I'd say the entire "ohmygosh he edited Misplaced Pages!" bit is grotesquely over-weighted in this article. It seems that every time Misplaced Pages looms in article that editors go ape and take out their shivs. Disgraceful. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

He edited Misplaced Pages under a pseudonym to attack other journalists, adding defamatory and untrue statements to their Misplaced Pages articles. If you read the sources, there is this sort of thing: "At the same time, a mysterious person also started tampering with Hari's enemies' Misplaced Pages entries. Mine started featuring all kinds of inaccuracies: I had been embroiled in rows over my anti-semitism and homophobia (not true); I'd been fired from the Catholic Herald (not true)." This is unusual behaviour for anyone, let alone an award winning journalist, and is reliably sourced. I think his Misplaced Pages editing currently has due weight. --Merlinme (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Coretheapple about overweighted.... Three paragraphs about the Orwell Prize seems a bit much. Also, he's getting very good reviews and is doing appearance sand promotion for his new book. There is an article devoted to the book, but his own article should at least have a paragraph about the book as it relates to his career and thus biography. It would be an overall improvement to the balance of the biography if more current news not devoted to this scandal were added to the page. Yes, he did wrong things, but it's not like he's a serial killer. Wikimandia (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This is close to being an attack piece because of the weight of negative stuff, and that is what is bothering me. Not saying omit, but it has to be more proportional. If that is the sum total of his life, then perhaps he is too insignificant to have an article at all. But if he is notable as a writer, then that has to be properly weighted. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are being slightly unfair to judge the article so harshly based on its current state. Yes it needs to be updated to reflect recent events, but the scandal dominated his life from 2011 onwards, and the article reflects that. There is more to report now he has published a book and is promoting it, but the book was only published in the last few weeks (January 2015). I've stated above that I think the "criticism of apology" section could be replaced by a sentence or two, and the article could probably now do with rebalancing to move away from the furore of 2011. But the controversy is still probably the most notable thing about him, and the article reflects that. Until recently it was unclear whether there would be anything else of note to report after the controversy; it could have sunk his career completely.--Merlinme (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I admit that the plagiarism aspect,and withdrawal of the Orwell prize, is troubling, and the self-immolation aspect of this guy's career definitely has to be given due weight. But there was a career before it was immolated, and that is what is not given sufficient weight. Spiro Agnew is a good analogy. He was disgraced more than this guy (and yes I know "other stuff exists") but compare the two bios and you can see my point. Coretheapple (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the Spiro Agnew article, and I'm not convinced it necessarily proves the point you want it to, as in a large article, his life after the scandal gets about four paragraphs.

If we're on "other stuff exists", have a look at Stephen Glass, where in a large article, it's debatable whether any of it apart from the two paras on his early life are about something other than the scandal.

Sometimes the scandal is the most significant event in someone's life, and Misplaced Pages is allowed to reflect that, provided it's noteworthy, reliably sourced, etc. etc. --Merlinme (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's the crucial question. In the case of Glass it definitely is. But Glass is sort of in a special category, as an entire movie was made about his disgrace. Would you put Hari in that category? As for Agnew, as you can see there is comparatively little about the scandal that made him a metaphor for crooked politicians. In his case, he had a legitimate career before his downfall, whereas Glass, as I understand him, was just a fake from day one. Was Hari a fake from day one? Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a question we should (or need to) get into here, especially for a BLP, even on the Talk Page. Certainly however Hari's career takes on a rather different light if you realise that people were questioning his journalism as early as 2003, i.e. the year he won "Young Journalist of the Year". --Merlinme (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned Glass in this before (I think) - I don't think you can put Hari in the same category. For years Glass completely fabricated entire stories, people, organizations, and events, and lied at every step of the way, even when confronted. He is so tainted not only will he never have a career in journalism, he was denied a license to practice law from both the NY and CA bar associations. Hari screwed up by stealing the quotes from other people, and the wikipedia trolling, but having good quotes in your story is not what makes a journalist or writer successful. Obviously some people will never forgive him and I can understand that, but from the support he's gotten from his new book (and that he was able to get a book deal in the first place), it seems some people are able to accept his apology and move on. I'm not lobbying that he's amazing, but the point is, there is more to his career than what his bio currently reflects. Wikimandia (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already said the article needs to be updated and rebalanced to reflect the new book. I haven't read the new book (or even a review), but it has apparently got sufficient attention to get its own Wiki article already, which is quite impressive. I used to enjoy reading Hari's stuff, he's a talented writer. I didn't necessarily agree with what he said all the time, but then I wouldn't expect to when reading an opinion piece. I think it's fair to say though that his career has been damaged by what appear to be some pretty significant character flaws. In terms of balance in his article, I have previously compared it to the Nick Cohen article, who is somewhat older and I guess didn't have the "buzz" that Hari managed to generate, but was probably in an approximately similar position of being a respected writer on the left in the UK who wouldn't however have been particularly known if you didn't read the left wing press in the UK. Cohen's Wiki article has one paragraph on his views and three paragraphs on his most significant book, which was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize. That would probably be about the size of the Hari article if it weren't for the scandal. But the scandal brought Hari much wider attention, and I'd imagine is still the only reason people who don't read the left wing British press would ever have heard of him. With that in mind, I'd say having at least half the article devoted to the scandal is reasonable. At the moment it's somewhat more than half, but assuming his career continues then this will change over time. I would personally probably add a paragraph or two on his new book (assuming it's sufficiently noteworthy) and perhaps cut down some of the detail on exactly what happened in 2011. But I don't think the current article is particularly unfair to him, especially if you were considering it a month or so ago, before the new book was published. --Merlinme (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

As with all Misplaced Pages articles, I would encourage people to read the sources rather than just the Misplaced Pages article before making up their mind about fairness and balance etc. For example, as early as 2003 it was suggested by Private Eye that Hari had made up an article about taking the drug Ecstasy; Hari had never taken the drug and phoned a friend to ask them what it was like. Similarly major doubts were cast on Hari's account of having seen the body of Carlo Giuliani, who died in the G8 summit protests in Genoa. Re: his dispute with Nick Cohen, Hari seems to have reviewed Cohen's most significant book without having read it properly; for example he attributed views to Cohen which were diametrically opposite to those Cohen expressed in the book. Re: Hari's Misplaced Pages editing, when Cohen brought the inaccuracies in the review to Hari's attention, Nick Cohen's Misplaced Pages article was updated by "David r from Meth Productions", with allegations appearing that Cohen "was a probable alcoholic, a hypocrite and a supporter of Sarah Palin". --Merlinme (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

But these are things that are speculative - "suggested by," "doubts were cast" etc. They can't be given weight at all. And it's not a fact that he vandalized Cohen's page - I'm sure it wasn't random, but was it definitely Hari? Couldn't it have been a friend of his trolling these people? These are things people can just kind of form their own opinions about. We can't give any credence to it at all... and even so, vandalizing someone's wikipedia page... is that really noteworthy? It's immature and unprofessional, but how does it really relate to someone's biography? It just seems so silly to me. If he's a pathological liar or a fabricator of tales then he's going to get busted again, eventually. I'm not familiar enough his work going back to 2003, but it would seem to me that the Independent had its reasons for not firing him outright. It should be pretty easy to go through his library of work and find out if this happened a few times or was a chronic thing. I would be shocked if they didn't go through everything with a magnifying glass. Anyway I think his article now is pretty OK - it doesn't seem like there was a consensus to add back in the whole thing about the criticism of his apology section. Once it opens back up it should be easier to add a paragraph about the book/promo info and then it will be more balanced out. Wikimandia (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way @Merlinme: I looked at Nick Cohen's article and IMO it really should be a more thorough. I've never heard of him but it seems he's had a fairly substantial career. But in looking at the talk page, there was drama before the vandalism with people writing too much about his political viewpoints and updating the article "every time he wrote a new column." At some point someone made a decision to hack it down to just a basic summary and remove everything else. So if you compare the two, I think Cohen's article needs to be expanded as well. Wikimandia (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The slight irony of the Nick Cohen article is that it used to be more substantial, but I believe (based mainly on Hari's apology) that Hari may have been one of the more significant contributors. Initially there was a lot of information added by IP addresses who appeared to know Cohen's work; it was only after Hari and Cohen had their public falling out that the "Alcohol" section got added. Hari addresses this in his public apology, and there appears to be a confession there about adding the Alcohol section to Cohen's article: "Using that user-name, I continued to edit my own Misplaced Pages entry and some other people’s too. I took out nasty passages about people I admire – like Polly Toynbee, George Monbiot, Deborah Orr and Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. I factually corrected some other entries about other people. But in a few instances, I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious: I called one of them anti-Semitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk. {emphasis added} I am mortified to have done this, because it breaches the most basic ethical rule: don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you. I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally." I repeat, that's pretty odd behaviour for anyone, let alone an award winning journalist. I think it's reasonable to have it in the Misplaced Pages article. Your statement "I've never heard of {Cohen} but it seems he's had a fairly substantial career" is to a large extent my point; unless you were a reader of the Independent or similar newspapers in the mid 2000s I doubt whether you would have heard of Hari either. It's the scandal which has made him somewhat famous, so it is reasonable to spend a significant chunk of the article on that scandal. --Merlinme (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I heard of Hari through his book and various publicity he's done for that. So IMO if he were able to get a substantial book deal and not be fired outright from the Independent, I have to imagine his career as a whole is definitely more than this scandal. I also think the Misplaced Pages thing is silly though - not everybody takes Misplaced Pages as seriously as others do. I don't think it needs to be expanded ad nauseam. Wikimandia (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hari probably wouldn't have written his book if he hadn't had to leave his job as a full-time newspaper journalist, and he wouldn't have got the same type of publicity for the book if he hadn't previously been involved in a scandal. E.g:'Chasing the Scream "is the prodigal fruit of that work, and with it redemption, if that was needed"'. However we are now essentially discussing what is due weight when discussing the man's career, i.e. a matter of emphasis, rather than what is included and what is not. I would hope therefore that we could find consensus fairly quickly when the article is removed from lock-down and we can actually start editing again. --Merlinme (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the shocking history of Hari editing this page, I think that *any* revisions made to the version that has existed for the last 3+ years need to be scrutinized extremely carefully. I was involved in trying to make this page less of a hagiography of Hari back in 2007 until 'David R' (Hari himself as sockpuppet) wore myself and others down. It is vital that it remains faithful to the most relevant facts about his life: that he was a reasonably successful journalist who was exposed as a chronic fraud and liar, who took great effort to improve his wikipedia entry and vandalize others and, when exposed, never adequately explained his actions and offered an apology that was roundly criticized as insufficient and insincere. None of that is POV. It is fact. That he has now just published a book that may or may not turn out to be successful or influential is not hugely relevant to his standing or stature as yet. -SamuelSpade79 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.232.26 (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

reflist

Editing through protection

I've just expanded the article with some new material. I used my administrative rights to edit through the current full protection as the material I am adding is unrelated to the content dispute being discussed above—I have added material about Hari's statements to the press now, but the edits being discussed above are primarily about whether or not to include discussion of the response to his apology back in 2011. I am neutral and undecided on the merits of including that material. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this is definitely warranted. Actually it was this article and the accompanying one in the Guardian discussing his new book that brought me to Hari's Misplaced Pages page in the first place. Wikimandia (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Misplaced Pages infoboxes.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Misplaced Pages infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:

• "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."

More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Misplaced Pages pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Misplaced Pages pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.

One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God". That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is An atheist, and considers atheism to be a religion.

In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely. Kraxler (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest everybody refrains from edit-warring, and we agree on the minimal uncontroversial wording. Kraxler (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we actually have a discussion first? One editor posting paragraphs of text and then another editor asserting that anyone who disagrees is edit warring does not count as a discussion.

I have re-read the Talk page cited by Guy Macon in his edit summary. I still do not understand how anyone can summarise that as a consensus for Religon = None.

To take it point by point:

• The single word "atheist" more precisely classifies a type of non-religion. There are several different types, as I'm sure we're all aware. Is it a key fact about Johann Hari? Yes, he clearly and explicitly identifies himself as such.
• "No consensus" is not the same as consensus for anything else. As there is no consensus on the more general point, editors who wish to argue the case specifically in relation to Hari should argue their case here.
• "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'." This is out of context. The full paragraph is:

"There is also a consensus that the phrase "Religion: Atheist" should not appear, being a contradiction in terms. The preferred phrase would be "Religion: None". This begs obvious questions. From the discussion below, I would tend to think that "Religion: Agnostic" should also be avoided but "Religion: Humanist" or "Religion: Secular humanist" would be permissible if based on a person's self-description from a reliable source; but there is no actual consensus on that point."

About the only thing everyone can agree on is that "Religion = Atheist" makes no sense. The closing summary makes few other clear explicit points, other than "no actual consensus". S Marshall doesn't even explicitly exclude Religion = Agnostic, although he suggests "I would tend to think it should also be avoided". S Marshall does not even mention the option "Religion = None (atheist)", even though it is discussed at some length in the actual discussion. All that we can really conclude about "Religion = None (atheist)" is that the summariser didn't feel able to say anything definitive about that option in the summary.

• I would say there is no consensus from any of that discussion except that Religion = Atheist should not be used... and we're not using that. Religion = None (atheist) was explicitly discussed on that Talk page, at some length. To ignore that discussion seems rather disingenuous to me. To give the precise results, "Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention" received the second highest number of !Votes. They were supposed to be exclusive !Votes, so if you include both the Religion = None (atheist) options, then it would have actually got 22 votes, double the votes for Religion = None. The results in order were: i) Do not use the parameter (22), ii) Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention (14), iii) Religion: None (11), iv) Religion: None (Atheist) (8). This was previously summarised below as "If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description include the word "atheist" in some form: Medium consensus for including the term "Atheist" (19 votes for, 8 against) {my emphasis}. A different summary was that "for non-religious affiliations (atheism, agnosticism, etc) the parameter should not be used at all." The latter was presumably based on the fact that 22 people voted for "Do not use". I would personally describe this as "No consensus", which was presumably the conclusion of the summariser, who didn't mention it at all.
• ":More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Misplaced Pages pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)".

I don't understand what the point of this is. We are using the phrase that there was significant support for in the incredibly in-depth discussion. Have you considered the possibility we're correct and the other pages are wrong? At best this is an "other stuff exists" argument.

• It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry".

I disagree. One extra word isn't going to kill people. And is there really that much debate about what atheism means?

• "It is highly objectionable to many atheists"

this is both questionable and irrelevant. Have you got a source for the fact that lots of atheists are offended by the use of "Religion = None (atheist" in Misplaced Pages? Does Misplaced Pages censor images of Muhammad?

• I'm going to leave the "Lady Gaga has a birthday of banana" argument. If anyone can tell me what the point of it is, please let me know.

To summarise: there is no broader consensus against using "Religion = None (atheist)", as long as there is a good source for it and it's relevant. It was actually one of the more strongly supported options in the incredibly long discussion. The fact that Guy is apparently on a one editor mission to remove the word "atheist" from Religion boxes does not change that fact. --Merlinme (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact that thousands of editors editing hundreds of pages all came to the same conclusion long before i came along shows consensus. I am sorry that you are not willing to accept that. As for your "argue the case specifically in relation to Hari", WP:Consensus is not local, and there is nothing about Hari that his page and his page alone should be treated any differently than all of the other pages on Misplaced Pages.

Besides, consensus on this talk page is currently two to one against you. Stop reverting and continue discussing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm very happy to discuss. "Consensus is not local" is irrelevant, as there is no broader consensus. If there is such a consensus, could you please point it out to me where it has been clearly laid out? Other stuff exists is not consensus.

Re: consensus of 2:1 on this Talk page, numbers do not make consensus, arguments do; two editors versus one definitely doesn't make consensus; and in general I'd appreciate if you'd wait more than five minutes before assuming we have identified consensus.

Do you have any substantive arguments why Johann Hari should not be identified as atheist in the infobox, other than the assertion of a consensus which doesn't exist? --Merlinme (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I already gave you my arguments, and at least one other person on this page (and dozens on other pages where I used the same arguments) found them to be compelling. If that is not enough for you, I suggest that you stop trying to get your way with reverts, go to WP:DRR, and request help resolving this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Do you have any substantive arguments why Johann Hari should not be identified as atheist in the infobox...?" That's changing the subject. The question here is whether such identification belongs in the infobox following the "Religion" tag. And the fact remains that atheism is not a religion, and "Religion: None (Atheist)" still uses the term in a religious context, which it should not. Perhaps the tag should be changed from "Religion" to something else, like "Belief(s) or lack thereof". Failing that, I think the field should be dropped completely as there are too many edge cases, even among theists; there is no way to present such information well in an "infobox". Jeh (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I gave you my counter arguments. Do you wish to engage with them?

Jeh, I accept your point (and I have in fact previously argued for something along the lines of Religious views; see Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion_means_what.3F. However the current discussion here is whether it is reasonable to have "Religion = None (atheist)" in the infobox for Johann Hari. I think atheist is helpful; Guy thinks atheist should never appear; what is your view? --Merlinme (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I rather object to the assertion that I am "trying to get my way with reverts". A cursory review of my contributions history would show that I use reverts rather sparingly. On the other hand, in the last three days I count 16 reverts by Guy on the question of "Religion = whatever".--Merlinme (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I already stated my view: "'Religion: None (Atheist)' still uses the term in a religious context, which it should not." To be more clear: I believe it is not helpful, even actively unhelpful, to the reader to use the term "atheist" in that way, regardless of whether it conveys useful information about the article subject. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(Regardless of what follows, thank you for expressing your viewpoint clearly!).

I disagree; what context is the rejection of the existence of god, if it is not a religious one? The subject is god, which is about as religious a context as it gets. Speaking as an atheist, in response to the question, "what are your views on religion?" my (short version) reply would be: "I don't believe in god." --Merlinme (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that "Religion" carries with it assumptions about organizations, doctrine, rituals, etc., etc. If the tag was "God believed in" then we might have "Yahweh", "Allah", ..., and "None", in which case "None (atheist)" would be accurate, though redundant. But no. The tag is "Religion", and while atheism does have a relationship to the fundamental belief of any religion, atheism is itself not a religion and is not on the same spectrum with Catholicism, Baptism, Judaism, Islam, etc. Yes, it would be pretty difficult to be an atheist with a religious affiliation. However it's certainly possible to be a theist with no religious affiliation.

Maybe the section head here, "Personal beliefs", would work in place of the "Religion" tag in the infobox. Or, better, "personal views", since atheism is non-belief. Of course any such proposed change to the infobox would be accused of being part of the "war on religion" (rolling eyes here). Jeh (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding "it would be pretty difficult to be an atheist with a religious affiliation", the following religious groups and subgroups manage to do it to a greater or lesser degree: Atheism in Hinduism, Unitarian Universalism#Beliefs, Christian atheism, Nontheist Quakers, and Pandeism. That last one is interesting in that it holds that there used to be a creator deity who ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity and became the universe -- so they agree with atheists about the present universe and the present lack of gods, but disagree about the existence of a creator deity. This, ot course, just highlights the many reasons why we shouldn't try to cram fine religious distinctions into infoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I woulds say "mostly to a lesser degree". But anyway, this just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't try to cram fine distinctions of any sort into infoboxes. My father's birth certificate says "Catholic", but he actively avoided setting foot in a church of any sort since he was about 17, aside from other people's marriages and funerals. Similarly my mother believed in more-or-less the Christian god, but not in Christ's virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, or the resurrection, but she wasn't Jewish in any sense of the word. Neither of them would ever rate a Misplaced Pages page, but to list him as "Catholic" (referenced to the birth certificate) or her as any one-word label I can think of aside from "theist" (which is not a religion any more than is "atheist") would be grossly misleading. Besides, "atheist" could mean anyone from a staunch activist like Madeline Murray O'Hare, through many well-known examples like James Randi, Penn Gillette, Bill Maher, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, etc. (for whom atheism is not the most important defining point of their existence but who do or did argue for that position fairly often)... to those who are known to be or to have been atheists but you'd not have known that unless someone asked them. If one writes "Religion: None (Atheism)" different readers will put the subject person at different points on this scale. This is why it's misleading. Infoboxes are for things that are are simple, non-interpretable facts, like date and place of birth and death, not for things that may take multiple words to properly describe. Jeh (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been clearly demonstrated that "atheism" is not a "religion". That's a simple question of English language. Until the end of this discussion, the word stays out of the infobox. Consensus is demonstrated by the several-hundredfold non-use of the word in as many articles. I urge everybody now to stop being disruptive and pointy. I also urge everybody not to continue the edit-warring. May I quote from a well known template message? "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." Kraxler (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Checking the closing statement at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, it is clear that the word "atheist" should not be used there. The consensus was assessed as not to use "Religion Atheist". To use "Religion: None (atheist)" is nothing else than trying to disregard consensus, and sneak in the not-to-be-used word on the flimsiest pretext. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The closing statement there has to be read in the context of the entire discussion which the summariser is trying to summarise, which was one of the most interminable discussions I have ever read on Misplaced Pages, and that is saying something. Towards the end of the discussion there was a straw poll, which was summarised by one person as showing "medium consensus" for including the word atheist in some form, and was summarised by a different person as showing consensus for not including Religion at all for atheists. "Religion = None" had fewer votes than either of those options.

The only thing there was a clear consensus on was that almost nobody liked "Religion = Atheist". As far as I can see, the summariser chose to concentrate on that point. In that context,the summariser wrote: "There is also a consensus that the phrase "Religion: Atheist" should not appear, being a contradiction in terms. The preferred phrase would be "Religion: None". This begs obvious questions. From the discussion below, I would tend to think that "Religion: Agnostic" should also be avoided but "Religion: Humanist" or "Religion: Secular humanist" would be permissible if based on a person's self-description from a reliable source; but there is no actual consensus on that point." I understand that to mean that Religion = Atheist should not be used, and I agree. Apparently the summariser thinks "Religion = Humanism" might be ok, which I have to say I think a lot people would disagree with, but it's not relevant to the matter at hand. As far as I can see the summariser has chosen to ignore the suggestion of Religion = None (atheist). That is fair enough, as consensus was not clear, and you're never going to be able to summarise every twist and turn of 40 pages of intricate debate.

Anyway, this is not "the hill I am prepared to fight and die on", as someone has characterised Guy's position on his Talk page. I believe Guy has now made the required hundreds of edits to eliminate every single example of atheist from the Religion box at least twice. He restarted on 1st April, after what is apparently a three month break.

I think that is borderline treating Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and I was seriously considering raising it as such at AN/I. However, Religion = None (atheist) was only ever an imperfect solution. As I've previously stated, I had suggested renaming "Religion" something like "Religious Beliefs". By far the most interesting thing Guy has said on the subject was that although there was no support for renaming the Religion field, there might be support for adding a new field. What seems ridiculous to me is that you can call a person a Free Presbyterian in their infobox (see Ian Paisley) as long as it's relevant and referenced, but you can't call a person an atheist. Adding a new field might solve that problem.

On the basis that that is a more constructive way forward than to add fuel to current flames, I will try to propose that, as I have time.--Merlinme (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing borderline about it. He has treated this as you characterized it.

I hope you can come up with a solution that will satisfy those sharing Guy Macon's belief system on this issue, but doubt it will be possible. Religion isn't a topic typified by tolerance and acceptance of dissenting views. At present "atheist" is effectively censored from the infobox. I'm not an atheist or agnostic, but I have a problem with that. Red Harvest (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• Low-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press