Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-04 Johann Hari

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Johann Hari
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	User: Felix-felix
Mediator(s)	TheronJ
Comment	Mediating

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|Johann Hari]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Johann Hari]]

Mediation Case: 2007-01-04 Johann Hari

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: David r from meth productions 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

... On the Johann Hari page

Who's involved?

...Me and a guy called Felix-Felix

What's going on?

...

Basically, we can't agree. Felix-Felix appears to be motivated by extreme hostility to Johann Hari, who he has described as “a little tyke”, “trivial”, and a supporter of “genocide” (because he initially supported the Iraq war based on his extensive friendships with victims of Saddam’s rule and visits to Iraq). He described the original wiki entry for Hari – which included accusations that he was soft on paedophiles, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, “fat”, “a Stalinist”, and “naïve” – as “a love letter”, which gives you some sense of how low his opinion of Hari is.

Worryingly, he has repeatedly tried to insert false and libellous arguments into the article. To give just one example, he has tried to claim that Hari – a left-wing writer from a working class family – went to Harrow School, one of the most expensive and elite public schools in Britain. Even when it was pointed out to him that this was wholly false (Hari went to a nearby school!), Felix-Felix kept trying to insert this claim.

Felix-Felix has a perception that Hari is some kind of right-winger, and has attempted to delete from the entry the copious evidence that contradicts this claim. For example, Hari supports total nuclear disarmament by the US, Britain and all other nuclear states, and is a vociferous campaigner on the question of global warming. Felix has tried repeatedly to delete these facts, on the grounds that these positions are “uncontroversial”. I pointed out that far from being “uncontroversial”, the idea of total nuclear disarmament is widely regarded as a radical position and is supported by, for example, just 6 or 651 British MPs, and no US Congressmen at all. He refused to accept this and just kept deleting it without offering a counter-argument.

He is presently trying to delete all the major criticisms of Hari in the entry from prominent right-wingers (presumably because they contradict his false view that Hari is himself a right-winger). He has dismissed criticisms by Bjorn Lomborg, who was named one of the twenty most important intellectuals in the world by Prospect magazine, and David Starkey, who was later named as one of the 100 most important intellectuals in Britain by Prospect. He claims these figures are “spurious” and “unimportant”. However, he believes that a minor blog-based group called Medialens, who he happens to agree with, should be quoted at great length (without quoting Hari’s response).

I believe in quoting a range of critics from across the political spectrum (and as it happens I personally agree with the Medialens criticism of Hari). So I repeatedly offered Felix-Felix a compromise: we should quote Medialens at length, provided we quote other critics at length and quote Hari’s responses. He has consistently refused to do this. He insists that we quote the critics he agrees with, and almost none of the others, no matter how eminent, and give only a single sentence of Hari’s response.

I have a more positive view of Hari than Felix, although I was careful in the entry I wrote to include criticisms by very substantial figures, including Noam Chomsky, Niall Ferguson and the Dalai Lama. Felix sees all of my proposals (even including accusation of being soft on paedophiles) as 'whitewashing', and he accuses virtually everyone who disagrees with him of being a sock-puppet.

What would you like to change about that?

... I've been offering compromises for ages only to be ignored, but there was one time we did achieve compromise: when a passing third party intervened. So I was wondering if you guys could help us out by coming along and suggesting compromises?

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

... Felix has agreed to mediation, so you can be as open as you like! Here or on the discussion page of the entry is fine. I'm sorry to waste your time like this but I couldn't think of any other way...

Mediator response

• I commented briefly on this debate before I realized there was an open mediation request. I will check with the parties to see if they're willing to have me mediate before taking this. In the interim, if anyone else wants to mediate, please feel free to do so - I won't be offended at all! TheronJ 17:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  Update: Both parties are cool with me mediating, so I am taking this one. I will investigate and update with some proposals of how to move forward. TheronJ 14:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

TheronJ initial thoughts and questions

I have read over the Johann Hari talk page. I recognize that there is a lot more in the archives, but I think I understand enough to get started.

My first thoughts are as follows:

1. It looks to me as if both David r and User:Felix-felix are acting in good faith to make the best encyclopedia as they see it. Both editors have agreed to mediation, and both editors have tried to confine their discussion to the substance of the article as much as possible. Good for you both.
2. With that said, there have been some jibes, accusations, personal comments, etc. I think that's understandable in light of the heat of the disagreement, but I am proposing that both of you make a new start, as my first "compromise proposal," below. I'm not making a judgment on who started anything or whether either of you was wrong, but I think it would be most constructive to forgive and forget any past comments, accusations, sockpuppetry, or really anything else and just start fresh.
3. After that, I'm open to how you guys want to go forward. Can you both put together a brief statement of (1) what you think the disagreement is regarding the Johann Hari article and (2) what you would like to see mediation achieve? You can add those brief statements immediately below this paragraph. Thanks! TheronJ 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Charles Matthews

I think a number of the basic points Felix-felix has made are sound. The article should not read like hagiography, and crisp style is better than overextended quotes (the man's a hack, not an academic, and he doesn't so much develop arguments as make a succession of phrases). There is no need to add in every minor thing about Hari. This point is made on WP:COI, under the notion of salience. We want the salient facts about Hari, and the rest can wait.

That being said, I don't like the niggling that has gone on. It is not collegiate to chafe away at every factual detail. Both parties here seem a bit too close to the subject, one way or another. And their approach to each other is adversarial, in a way not acceptable here. Charles Matthews 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

David and Felix's responses to initial questions

David and Felix: If you would, please lay out, in a few sentences, (1) your perception of the current disagreement regarding the Johann Hari article, and (2) what you would like to see this mediation achieve. Thanks, TheronJ 15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

TheronJ compromise proposal 1: Fresh Start

It looks to me as if both editors are trying to write a good encyclopedia, but that their content disputes may have left some bad blood between them. I propose that both Felix and David agree to try their best to make a fresh start -- to forgive and forget any jibes, accusations, sockpuppetry, accusations of sockpuppetry, or any other stuff that may or may not have happened in the past, and "start fresh" with the assumption that the other editor is at least trying to write a good encyclopedia as he sees it.

Note: this compromise is aspirational, not actionable. If things start to break down again, the compromise can't be used as a "club" to accuse the other party of failing to completely forgive, forget, or whatever. (I might remind you of it, however). Also, if the worst happens and you guys find yourself in arbitration, past acts may be cited as evidence as needed. All this compromise does is symbolize your agreement to work together on a fresh start basis in this mediation and on the article page.

David and Felix, please indicate whether you agree or disagree below. (You should absolutely feel free to disagree or suggest changes if you have concerns. I'm suggesting this as an initial compromise and I think it's a good idea, but it's voluntary.) Thanks, TheronJ 15:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree:

Yep, seems like a good start to me.Felix-felix 15:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, thanks ever so much for volunteering 86.129.136.92 00:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree:

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

The disagreements were summarised and numbered on the edit page:

1. Which photo(s) should be included (link to photos?). (The photo Felix wishes to be used is not in fact of Hari, however).

2. Whether Hari being the youngest person ever nominated for the Orwell Prize should be mentioned. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

3. Whether criticism by Bjorn Lomberg should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

4. Whether criticism by David Starkey should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

5. Whether Hari's position on nuclear disarmament should be included. (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

6. Whether Medialens should be quoted, while simultaneously cutting out other critics, and leaving out Hari's response to Medialens and the salient opinion poll data

7. Whether Hari's criticisms of Che and Galloway should be grouped together as criticisms of the communist-supporting left (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

8. Whether Hari's 2006 nominations as Secularist of the Year and Gay Journalist of the Year should be included (Dave thinks yes, Felix thinks no)

10. Whether there should be removal of the environmental and nuclear disarmament passages altogether (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

11. Whether there should be removal of the enlightenment passage. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

12. Whether the gay and women's sections should be cut down-specifically the quotes and paraphrases from individual articles. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

13. Whether there should be the removal of his views on certain television programs. And the criticism of those views. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

14. Whether there should be the removal of criticism by Oliver Kamm for praising Chavez. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

15. Whether we should cutting out as many quotes as possible, replacing them with short summaries of his position. (Felix thinks yes, Dave thinks no)

Felix has in the past agreed to the Enlightenment passage as a compromise. He now appears to have retracted this compromise. David r from meth productions 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, as a starting offer, I will reluctantly concede on point 13 if Felix reluctantly concedes on point 10. David r from meth productions 13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, David. Felix, as a first step, could you put together a short statement identifying (1) what you think is the central dispute between you and David, and (2) what you would like to get out of the mediation? I will try to put together a plan to address both of your goals. TheronJ 14:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I should also say: my goal is for the entry to both accurately describe Hari's political positions, using quotations from the horse's mouth wherever possible, and to include a broad range of critics from across the political spectrum, again using direct quotation wherever possible. What I want to avoid is the article representing the POV of one particular editor, quoting the critics he agrees with and ignoring everyone else. I think the entry for Peter Hitchens, another journalist of a similar profile but very different politics, is a pretty good template. Nobody in the discussion there has ever suggested this is anything other than a good model for a wiki entry of a journalist commentator. David r from meth productions 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the main bone of contention between daver and myself is one of emphasis, and style. By that, I tend to feel that daver is makes edits which are flattering to Hari, or overly emphasise disagreements or controversy concerning things that he has writen about. I'm more critical, and feel that most of the subjects that he writes about could be covered in simple summarising sentences or, at most paras-without recourse to long quotations. Ironically, the only thing which hari has written about in which our positions were reversed was about his stance on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which he (fairly notoriously) supported-although he later recanted-I was in favour of criticism here, daver was not, except with caveats. The overall style of the article, in my view suffered with this approach-being in the format 'Hari said "I think that blah blah blah" however, his was criticised by Mr X who said "Hari is being blah blah blah"' At one point this format was applied to most passages in the article-many of which were not notable (Hari's views on soap operas and sketch shows, for example). I also felt that daver tended to write in a hyperbolic style that was often overlong and often unverifiable. I think that alot of the problems on the page have come from bad blood betwen us-and revisiting the issues, one at a time through a neutral third party, in the absence of personal attacks, might move things forward. Or not. But I'm happy to give it a go.Felix-felix 14:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Update: I apologize for taking so long. Those comments are helpful. My plan is to summarize what I think are the relevant policies and guidelines, then start taking on David R.'s line items one by one, but it may take a few more days to get all the policies together. TheronJ 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush, Theronj. it might be worth checking out the comments by mr Thomas on the Hari discussion page, recently added. They reflect a growing consensus on the page about how to resolve some of these issues... David r from meth productions 16:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I made some points on the list of disputed points, but have been told that here would be the most appropriate place. Essentially I think that as wikipedia is not paper the article doesn't have any pressing need to be shortened (it is not of unreasonable length in my opinion), and the accusations of non-notability are controversial, so I reckon they should stay in. Generally then I agree with David. I didn't notice any violations of NPOV on the page. All of what I said is on the list of disputed points on Hari's talk page, but I'll post the most important ones here (if this is unwanted then I suppose someone can just delete them?):

• 7) I think they are important to include (esp. Galloway, obviously), but I don't necessarily think that they should be lumped together. If others decide that the Che part is irrelevant I would not be devastated if it were removed, although I wouldn't recommend it myself.
• 8) I think they are relevant (nominations for awards do acknowledge ability/importance).
• 10) I don't think they are spurious. I don't see a compelling reason for removing them (or the input of Starkey and Lomberg), given that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. I don't think they are excessively detailed, and they give valuable insight into the subject.
• 11) I think this is a pretty important aspect to Hari's writing (it informs a lot of the rest of it, and is a pretty important part of someone's political philosophy nowadays, especially within the left).
• 12) I think these sections are pretty useful for understanding Hari. I don't feel strongly either way about trimming, but I do think they should remain generally. (Also for this point I see no problem with mentioning his sexuality - I think this was discussed somewhere on the talk page?)
• 15) Quotes are often as good as short summaries, and give a better feel of the writer. However, so long as this is done well and fairly I don't have a massive problem with it.

Hope that was of use. Mr-Thomas 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As somebody who's been following the debate on the Hari discussion page since it started I'm pleased to see that the Wikipedia authorities have found the issues at stake important enough to merit mediation.

I feel strongly that, in relation to point (10), Hari's views on the environment and nuclear energy ought to be fully covered, particularly in light of their relevance to news items and events which are highly topical and only likely to increase in importance over the coming years. The same can obviously not be said of the Enlightenment and television. Thelionforreal 21:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there's two other little changes I'd like to make;

(1) Where it says: "Hari describes himself as a "European social democrat", who believes that markets "must exist as an essential tool to generate wealth"." This only shows half of the social democratic equation, and is therefore quite misleading. It should say: "Hari describes himself as a "European social democrat", who believes that markets "must exist as an essential tool to generate wealth", but must also be matched by strong trade unions and strong democratic intervention to counterattack their many negative effects."

(2) Where it says: "Many people on the left, most notably Noam Chomsky[45], believe Hari's initial support for the invasion of Iraq, after visiting Saddam's Iraq, contradicts his self-description as a left-winger. Hari always opposed the WMD rationale for war and said "the Bush administration is very obviously not doing this for the right reasons, to say the least"; but he believed – on the basis of opinion polls – that "a majority of Iraqis would rather takes their chances with a horrible American occupation than with the living hell of Saddam and his sons for generations to come." I would make two changes. "many" should be changed to "some", and "on the basis of opinion polls" should be changed to "on the basis of visiting Saddam's Iraq, extensive interviews with the exile community, and opinion polls taken within Iraq".

David r from meth productions 14:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)