Talk:Johann Hari

What Claims?

It says that he was criticised for his reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and then 'these claims were disputed'. What claims? Sounds interesting. Plus, on the side, does Hari's website really spell 'separatism' as 'seperatism'? Which university did he go to again? Or is this just a typo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.143 (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a link to the claims. It was a consensus built up over quite a long time that the claims would be linked to so anybody who was curious could find them but not discussed in the entry so as to not give Wiki:UNDUE weight to what is a self-appointed pressure group condemning any public figure who takes the position Hari takes on Israel/Palestine. I'm not especially happy with this compromise, I don't think the claims should be included at all, but I think the compromise was quite hard won and I'd be really reluctant to see it unpicked and woudl try to defend if for that reason. - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.24.215 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A very hard-won consensus has been built up around the current descriptions of the Israel/Palestine section. As I 've said before I'm not totally happy with it but have accepted it in the name of consensus-building. Cipergoth is trying to insert the label 'pro-Israeli' into the description fo CAMERA and Honest Reporting as if that is a neutral label. In fact in Hari's response he disputes that they are pro-Israel and argues that are dooming Israel. This is clearly a contested label and shouldn't be used as if it is a neutral description. Please stick to POV rules - DavidR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.24.181 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Cipergoth is trying to add that they describe themselves as pro-Israel. I'm fine with that as long as we add a balancing sentence later on explaining that Hari disputes the claim they are pro-Israel, quoting his argument. That seems like a fair compromise. However, previously, editors have said this section is too long so I wanted to put it to discussion here and form a consensus. Does anyone object to this proposed solution? - DavidR86.175.24.181 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

3O - With CAMERA and HonestReporting

Sorry for the delay on this. I find the current version of this section to be both problematic, and generally representative of the problem on this page. By this, I mean that it's written like someone was defending their best friend. Something like "No, Johann told me that they're trying to smear anyone who talks about the Palestinians!" Further, the proposed changes by David r - who is both an single purpose account and a clear conflict of interest - are even more unacceptable, as they are even more skewed towards defending Hari. Honestly I don't know how to make this section any better. A point-counterpoint sort of thing, where criticisms against Hari are explained and then countered, wouldn't really be any better, but it would at least give even weight. Maybe. As a side note, I find ref 70 to Pappe's book entirely unnecessary, as it's not really quoting anything in that book; it's just a reference to the book itself. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Annyong. I'll take on board your criticisms. At the moment, the HonestReporting section quotes Andrew Sullivan not to defend Hario but because he is the only reliable source that anyone could find who isn't directly involved in the conflict. If anyone can find another reliable source not involved, I think we should include it too. As it stands, though, that is the only reliable external source anyone can find so I think it's important, if we include the section at all, to include the only reputable source that discusses it.

I agree about the reference about Pappe's book, I suggested removing that too. Fae, do you agree we should remove it? If so I will take it out, if not I won't.

Re: having a conflict of interest. As I said when I started editing this entry ages ago, I knew Hari when we were students. I haven't seen him in years. I've always been transparent about that. I was advised by admins back then that provided I was always upfront about having known him over a decade ago, and explained it plainly, and edited in line with the wikipedia rules, I was ok. In fact, if you look back over the dispute with Felix-Felix, there were several occassions when I was keeping in criticisms of Hari, and he was deleting them, so I think I'm not guilty of bias.

But I'll think carefully about what you say and try to find the best possible solution, and I'd value your advice and guidance. Best wishes, DavidDavid r from meth productions (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Before making any changes, please consider the suggestion at Wikipedia:COI#Close relationships. You may believe that you are aiming for balanced contributions but this is not the feedback documented here. If you wish to avoid contention it is fairly straightforward to make proposals for improvements or corrections on this talk page and leave it to someone else to make the edit. As the article is already substantial and relatively stable this does not seem a particular burden. Further disputes are likely to lead to a notice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) for independent advice and possible action. You may wish to clear the air and raise a notice on COIN yourself in advance of further editing. Fæ (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, it's really helpful. I'll be sure to discuss any future changes on the discussion page first and encourage others to make the edit, as you suggest.David r from meth productions (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hari's parents

I've added a line about who Hari's parents were to 'early life' with a good source. It seems worthwhile - people might wonder why he has an immigrant name, and his working class background is a recurring theme in Hari's work. What do other editors think? - DavidRDavid r from meth productions (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)