Talk:Johann Hari

Page lacks overall balance

I believe Johann Hari's page lacks balance as well as a proper emphasis on more recent works, and that there is instead an unjustified emphasis on plagiarism and other scandals that date much further back in Hari's career.

For example, with an edit I made at 3:18, 13 January 2025, I undid an edit by MedianJoe that they made at 18:31, 1 January 2025. MedianJoe moved information on past instances of plagiarism to the second sentence of the page introduction on Hari. MedianJoe's stated reasoning for their change was that information in the page introduction should be presented chronologically. It is my understanding that the first 1-2 sentences of a Wikipedia entry should discuss the subject's most important and impactful work, and the work they are best-known for, and not necessarily the subject's earliest work. I therefore undid MedianJoe's revision to move Hari's most notable and best-known work back to the top of the page introduction. This was basic information on Hari's best-selling books from the late-2010s, such as their titles and years of publication. But that revision was then undone by Grayfall, and I was directed to this Talk page.

I am requesting that my 3:18, 13 January 2025 edit be reinstated to once again place Hari's most impactful and best-known work at the top of the page introduction. This will begin to develop the current page into a better example of overall balance, although I believe significantly more work is needed, given that the books Hari has published in since the mid-2010s have experienced significant commercial success and won multiple awards and other recognitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlupick (talk • contribs) 00:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging User:David r from meth productions to see if he has anything to add.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That editor's been blocked since July 2011. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I was perhaps being too subtle. That account was controlled by Hari, and he used it for his rather famous defamation campaign against other writers he didn't like.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In the UK Hari is better known for the plagiarism/fabrication scandal... the intro to the article has already been the subject of extensive discussion on this talk page with a result that was agreed on by consensus. I notice that you have been extensively editing the article to try to downplay/remove the scandal, and I'm sure you have your reasons, but I don't agree with more the hagiographical version. MedianJoe (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello @MedianJoe. Thank you for taking the time to write. I am not tring to downplay or remove any scandal. That is honestly not my intent. I have written extensively about mental health and addiction, including two books on the subject plus +15 years at mainstream newspapers, and I simply recognize Hari's contributions to the subject areas. And I view his Wikipedia page as lacking balance. The vast majority of the page concerns scandals that date from 2001 to ~2010. Meanwhile, 3-4 internationally best-selling nonfiction books published 2015-24 were barely even mentioned until I added summaries for them. So I simply wish to balance the page, where Hari's more-recent, highly successful work receives the same attention as his problematic work that he produced through the 2000s.

I'll add, I respectfully maintain that in the UK, Hari is not best-known for plagiarism dating to the 2000s. The mainstream public does not pay attention to such things (for better or worse). In contrast, Hari’s books published 2015-24 are bestsellers and have been translated and republished around the world. Some Wikipedia editors may know Hari for plagiarism, but I'll gently contend that that is not what he is known best for. Once again, I do thank you for your time. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and I appreciate people taking the time to offer their thoughts and suggestions related to my edits. Tlupick (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Where to start? The summaries you added were not from a neutral point of view. Your use of language in the article, and here on this talk page, are too promotional. Your summary reads far too much like a PR piece, not like an encyclopedia article. (You've mentioned "best-sell_" six times in this section alone.) This is not how Wikipedia articles should determine due weight, and leads should summarize proportionately to sources, not to one editor's personal contention. To put it another way, since this is an encyclopedia article, we should take a long view and use reliable sources without WP:RECENTISM instead of WP:OR.

Padding-out the article to add more promotional details and WP:PUFFERY based on flimsy primary sources is the wrong approach for adding balance. There are some significant problems with the current article (especially sources), but... Hopefully it's obvious why editors here are cautious of over-correcting to add WP:FALSEBALANCE, and to be blunt, your edits appear to be doing just that. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell I disagree with your characterization of my book summaries. I maintain they were straightforward summaries of each book, with little notable about them in one way or another. But I'll take another crack at them and apply the recommendations you’ve included in criticisms here. I don't intend to add false balance, only balance. And overall, I appreciate your advice. I’m new at this, and I thank you for taking the time. Tlupick (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

After more closely reviewing some of the changes you've made, I have additional concerns. The reviews you cited were misrepresented. You summarized this review as "mostly positive". I don't think that's accurate. The review is mostly just an account of the contents of the book. The reviewers summary is at the end, which says:

This approach is ultimately to the book’s detriment, coming off as naive or, worse, manipulative — a gamble for the British journalist, who was fired as a columnist for the Independent and forced to return the prestigious Orwell Prize after admitting to plagiarism and other egregious professional misconduct in 2011. (Knowing that his work here will be heavily scrutinized, Hari has uploaded audio of his interviews to the book’s website and has asked readers to e-mail him with any corrections or errors.)

“Chasing the Scream” is a riveting book, and Hari is an effective storyteller; he would have been better off keeping the focus off of himself and entirely on Chino, Rosalio and the others.[1]

The Guardian review says something similar:

His biggest problems, though, are a tendency to insert himself into the cracks between his stories, and his often histrionic turn of phrase. No one, it seems, has explained to him the strengths of the show-don’t-tell school of non-fiction writing.[2]

The NYT source is likewise pretty harsh:

When Hari was first caught pilfering from other journalists, he wrote that he was “bemused” that anyone felt using quotes given to another reporter amounted to plagiarism. But the only way such a practice would be acceptable is if the reporting component of a journalist’s job amounted to nothing more than stenography. By not looking at the research of Mate, Alexander and Marks through a critical lens, Hari makes it easier for critics to dismiss them outright. That is a shame: While each man pushes his conclusions to extremes unsupported by data, their underlying message — that harm reduction is the most rational and humane approach to drug use and abuse — is, in fact, backed by copious research. Hari might not be passing off other people’s work as his own anymore, but he still seems to be looking for quick fixes.[3]

All of these sources discusses Hari's plagiarism and misconduct, because of course they do! You cannot use these sources to imply that his previous actions are no longer significant enough to belong in the first paragraph.

Please stop writing backwards. Look at what these sources are actually saying instead of trying to figure out ways to add "balance" to the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello? Are you just going to ignore this? Are you going to explain why were misrepresenting sources for promotional purposes? Grayfell (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Grayfell. I have read your criticisms carefully and made a conscious effort to apply the advice you offer to my writing of additional paragraphs that summarize Hari's other notable books. You have now deleted those paragraphs, as well, which I feel were a fair and accurate summaries of collected critical reactions. I have therefore added another discussion topic to this Talk page ("Summaries of critical reception to Hari's major works"), and I hope to find consensus there. Tlupick (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Negative book reviews included in page while positive reviews are removed

It appears that negative reviews of some of Hari's books are being allowed on this page while quotations from positive reviews are being removed. For example, the page states that, "Writer/broadcaster Matthew Sweet investigated some of the statements in the book [Stolen Focus] and found that Hari had failed to cite the primary sources for some studies, and misrepresented the results of studies that suggested multitasking could have benefits in certain conditions." (I’m putting aside that this critical review appears to come from a blog, and not a mainstream publication, and so probably shouldn’t be included on a Wikipedia page at all.) However, the following section was removed: "Upon publication, The Telegraph described Magic Pill as, “A wonderfully accessible exploration of one of the most complex problems of our age.” And Booklist gave it a starred review and wrote, “A terrific read for anyone curious about or considering using these remarkable medications.” (These review snippers are not overly long and were included because they do not offer general praise, but rather describe the book as specifically meeting a need of the general audience.)

If Hari's page is going to include quotes from negative reviews, I suggest it should include quotes from positive reviews, as well. Tlupick (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Summaries of critical reception to Hari's major works

I am trying to add one paragraph to each of the four subsections that describe Hari's four notable books (Chasing the Scream, Lost Connections, Stolen Focus, and Magic Pill). In addition, I have tried to learn from criticisms of my earlier edits to Hari's page, and I have made a conscious effort to write one-paragraph summaries of critics' responses that are and an accurate sample of the general critical response to each of Hari's books. But the user @Grayfell has deleted my summaries, arguing that they are "promotional padding."

If summaries of critical receptions to notable works are allowed on Wikipedia, I am asking for consensus on this Talk page that my summaries be reinstated, and I respectfully ask that @Grayfell stop deleting them. Thank you for your kind discuss.

I'll add that elsewhere on Hari's Wikipedia page, there are quotes from and discussion of negative reviews of Hari’s other journalism work, and so there is the perception that negative reviews are being allowed on this page, while positive ones are being deleted.

Here is the paragraph that @Grayfell deleted from the Lost Connections section: "Kirkus Reviews published a positive review of the book, calling it a "weighty, well-supported, persuasive argument against treating depression pharmaceutically." In the British Journal of General Practice, Thomas Bransby wrote that Lost Connections is a “perfect balance of fictionalised non-fiction and factual evidence, coupling diverse personal narratives with an intense investigation into the failings of Western society to better connect us all.” The Guardian wrote that Lost Connections is an "eye-opening, highly detailed though sometimes frustrating investigation into the causes and cures of depression." The Guardian's review also alluded to Hari's earlier examples of journalism malpractice that date to his time as a newspaper reporter, and in contrast, notes that in Lost Connections, Hari is "meticulous in revealing his methods" and made "copious" notes and interview recordings available to explain and detail his research of the book."

Here is the paragraph that @Grayfell deleted from the Stolen Focus section: "Kirkus Reviews gave Stolen Focus a positive review, writing it is "bristling with facts and ideas expressed in a high-energy, cliffhanger style."[60] The San Francisco Chronicle called the book "incredibly readable" and "fascinating" where it explores, not only people’s decreasing abilities to ingest large volumes of information, but the consequences of that, such as a decline in empathy.[61] The Irish Times similarly praised Stolen Focus for making academic papers accessible by featuring interviews with their authors, but added Hari sometimes goes too far in reducing complex topics to bullet points.[62] A more critical review in the Sydney Morning Herald recommended the book for people interested in the subject, but described Stolen Focus as mostly a retelling of research already covered in other publications, albeit one written with "style."[63]" Tlupick (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add, there is a paragraph in the Chasing the Scream section of Hari's page that summarizes reviews, and its inclusion has been allowed. In addition, there are summaries of reviews of Hari's books in the "Criticism of inaccuracy and misrepresentation in books" section of Hari's page. I therefore reiterate my request that we reach a consensus to reinstate the paragraphs I wrote summarizing reviews of Lost Connections and Stolen Focus. If summaries of reviews of Hari's books are allowed elsewhere on the page, they should be allowed where I have written them for Lost Connections and Stolen Focus. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Existing problems with the article are not an excuse to introduce more problems. This is not the article about Lost Connections, and this is not the article about Stolen Focus.

More specifically, cherry-picking the most flattering bits from flattering reviews is not neutral, and is a form of editorializing. Your summary of the Guardian review, for example, is lopsided and selective. The source also says, among other things, that the book includes "overwrought metaphors and flashes of daft melodrama", and says "it’s somewhat baffling, given the legwork put in, how little his interviewees actually get to say." Glossing-over the unflattering bits in a rush to emphasize the flattering bits is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell I disagree with your characterization of my summaries. I do not agree that they are lopsided or selective. I tried to select excerpts that represent the whole, constrained by the limitations of summarizing. Or I looked for the reviewer’s concluding or overall thought on the book. That said, I am going to make a second attempt with these summaries of critical receptions that you deleted. I will rewrite them with an even greater eye for accurate representation, as you’ve suggested. To your larger point, about whether such sections should be included at all, I’ll note that summaries of critical receptions to creators' works are a part of many pages on Wikipedia, and given the substantial portions of Hari's page that discusses his work already, I feel they should be included here. If Hari's page is going to discuss his work from 2001 to 2011 in such great detail, it should also include discussions of his work from 2015-2025. Tlupick (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you do not have consensus for adding this promotional material, please propose changes on the talk page instead of edit warring. Wikipedia generally doesn't operate on precedent, it operates on consensus based on reliable sources. Other articles use other sources to describe other things.

As for "his work from 2001 to 2011", many reliable sources discuss his plagiarism and fabrications which were discovered around 2011. Sources for his activity prior to this are flimsy and primary. Intentionally padding-out the article to balance out this coverage is false balance. What the article "should" include is a neutral summary of reliable, independent sources. No cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell and others, let's back up and take this step by step. Can we please arrive at a consensus to include a brief, one-short-paragraph summary of critical receptions to each of Hari's four notable books? These short paragraphs would be included under each of the four corresponding page subheads, following each book's synopsis. (Since @Grayfell has already allowed one such summary of critical receptions, for Chasing the Scream, I hope this consensus will not be difficult to reach.) Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, since you don't have consensus, you should propose such content here on the talk page instead of edit warring. Consensus for such content would depend on that content and the cited sources. If you still do not understand why I've described your edits as being too promotional, I don't think consensus is going to be likely. Grayfell (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell I will interpret your last message, as well as your approval of a summary of critical reception to Chasing the Scream, as an agreement that paragraphs summarizing critical receptions to each notable work are, in principle, allowed.

I will now write new summaries of critical receptions to each notable work. I will post them here before editing the Hari page with their additions. I want to emphasize that there is a difference between "promotional" content and summaries of reviews that happen to be positive. I will write summaries of critical receptions to each of Hari's books. These may include positive reviews as well as negative reviews. I expect both to be allowed, provided the summaries are of mainstream outlets' reviews and are accurate reflections of the reviews that Hari's books received. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not a review happens to be positive is usually subjective. Unsurprisingly, this isn't a new issue on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't trying to be Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. We are not obligated to split reviews into positive and negative, and we are not obligated to include some of each of these arbitrary sides. Since saying a review is "mostly positive" (or similar) is usually subjective, adding these qualifiers is a not-so subtle form of editorializing.

With that in mind and from your comments above, it seems like your goal in including these incidentally positive reviews was functionally to add false balance, which is a form of promotion. I suggest that you rethink your approach. Grayfell (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell perhaps you and I got off on the wrong foot. Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. In terms of next steps, all I want to do is add a short paragraph to each book's subsection that stand as a fair and accurate representation of the overall MSM critical reception to each title.

I’ve rewritten a paragraph summarizing the critical reception to Lost Connections.

Kirkus Reviews published a positive review of the book, calling it a "weighty, well-supported, persuasive argument against treating depression pharmaceutically." The Sydney Morning Herald called Lost Connections "deeply engrossing" and wrote it "bristles with ideas and provocations," but was critical of the book's rigid structure. The Guardian wrote that Lost Connections is an "eye-opening, highly detailed though sometimes frustrating investigation into the causes and cures of depression." The Guardian's review also alluded to Hari's earlier examples of journalism malpractice that date to his time as a newspaper reporter, and in contrast, noted that in Lost Connections, Hari is "meticulous in revealing his methods" and made "copious" notes and interview recordings available to explain and detail his research of the book.

Sources: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/johann-hari/lost-connections/, https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/lost-connections-review-johann-hari-on-how-we-should-talk-about-depression-20180307-h0x5rx.html, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/17/lost-connections-johann-hari-review.

I selected these outlets/reviews because they 1) are mainstream media outlets and well-known to general audiences; and 2) they express a critic’s opinion of the book as opposed to only summarizing it. I included the second section summarizing the Guardian’s comparison of Lost Connections to Hari’s earlier newspaper work because Hari’s misconduct as a newspaper journalist is a central topic of this Wikipedia page, and thus I think later developments are highly relevant.

I wrote this paragraph in a sincere attempt to simply write a fair summary of the book’s critical reception, and I believe it accurately reflects the overall reception that this book received. It’s a simple and straightforward addition to the page, and one on which I hope we can arrive at a consensus and agree to publish. Thank you for your time. Tlupick (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Your proposal suggests that (assuming good faith) you do not understand, or just ignored, what I'm saying. I understand that some other articles use this cherry-picking approach, and I don't think it's a good practice anywhere else, either. I've already tried to explained to you the issues with artificially dividing these into 'positive' and 'negative' reviews. Do you understand what I'm saying about this?

By saying that 'later developments are highly relevant', to me that suggests that you're adding these reviews because you want to tell a story about Hari. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Try summarizing these reviews without dancing around them looking for juicy blurb-words like "eye-opening" and "riveting".

As an example of what I mean, the Guardian review says the book is "rigorous if flawed" in the sub-headline. Is calling something rigorous and flawed a positive statement? It's not that simple. I'm not saying the review isn't positive, I'm saying that being positive isn't the purpose of the review, it's saying something a lot more subtle and a lot more interesting. Reducing it to blurb-words is doing a disservice to the article and to the source. Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell it’s begun to feel like we’re spending a lot of time discussing my assumed motives and your perceptions of my methodology. Let’s please focus on the content and the substance of the actual addition I propose. I maintain it is a reasonably fine addition to Hari's Wikipedia page that contributes something minor but useful to readers.

On the second Guardian sentence, specifically, I am merely returning to a topic that's discussed elsewhere on the page. It's a central topic to the page, and I'm simply adding to the topic. There is discussion of Hari's former malpractices in the review summary that I believe you wrote for the Chasing the Scream section. Now you are suggesting I cannot do the same for Lost Connections. This appears to me to be one of a number of double standards you are applying to anything I add to this page. (It also suggests this Wikipedia page should detail Hari’s mistakes, but should not discuss his efforts to correct his mistakes, because that would “tell a story.” Again, I suggest your opposition here is rooted in mistaken assumptions about the Wikipedia writer vs. the actual content in question.)

Regardless, I have once again tried to apply your suggestions. Here is another rewrite of the paragraph on which we are trying to arrive at consensus. Thank you.

Kirkus Reviews published a positive review of the book, calling it a "weighty, well-supported, persuasive argument against treating depression pharmaceutically." The Sydney Morning Herald called Lost Connections "deeply engrossing" and wrote it "bristles with ideas and provocations," but was critical of the book's rigid structure. The Guardian wrote that Lost Connections is rigorously researched and eye-opening in its criticisms of the pharmaceutical industry and treatment systems, but frustrating in terms of its writing style and Hari’s tendency to underestimate the reader. The Guardian's review also alluded to Hari's earlier examples of journalism malpractice that date to his time as a newspaper reporter, and in contrast, noted that in Lost Connections, Hari is "meticulous in revealing his methods" and made "copious" notes and interview recordings available to explain and detail his research of the book. Tlupick (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I suppose that is an improvement over your previous proposals, but, regardless of your motives, it still seems like you've missed my point.

While looking at the article to try and find another way I could explain this, I notice that you've apparently cited your own review of one of his books. While it is not strictly forbidden or anything, it's not a good thing to do. Omitting your own name in the citation doesn't make it any better. I don't think you should cite your own work at all, as this is a conflict of interest, and to be blunt, your published admiration for Hari's work makes it a bit harder to to accept your implied impartiality. Regardless, considering Hari's history of editing Wikipedia to promote his own work, this was an especially poor choice.

But back to my point, See WP:TONE. We cannot use cherry-picked quotes from reviews (regardless of how much we agree with them) as an excuse to add promotional material to the article. Choosing to highlight blurb-like phrases you personally think summarize these reviews is a form of editorializing. This is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We're not trying to emphasize how much some reviewers liked his books. Do you understand now what I'm saying now? Grayfell (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell, I've come to regard your characterization of anything that's positive as "promotional" as  disingenuous. And part of the pattern of double standards for which I gave examples in my previous message.

I strong disagree with your assertions that I am "cherry picking" and adding "promotional content." If I have a bias, here, it is simply toward coherence. I picked quotes from reviews that represent the wider review and which work as a snippet to include in a Wikipedia entry. That's really it.

I apologize if I seem frustrated. These are not controversial edits. Countless Wikipedia pages for movies, albums, books, etc., show that they have received favorable or negative reviews, and they often do this by quoting short excerpts from reviews. Examples:

Mean Streets: "Pauline Kael was among the enthusiastic critics, calling it "a true original, and a triumph of personal filmmaking" and "dizzyingly sensual"."

Blonde on Blonde: "Pete Johnson in the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Dylan is a superbly eloquent writer of pop and folk songs with an unmatched ability to press complex ideas and iconoclastic philosophy into brief poetic lines and startling images.""

Jurassic Park: "In a review for The New York Times, Christopher Lehmann-Haupt described it as "a superior specimen of the [Frankenstein] myth" and "easily the best of Mr. Crichton's novels to date"."

This is not "editorializing" and it is not "promotional," as you have repeatedly claimed in trying to justify your deletions of anything positive that's added to the Hari page. It's simply summarizing critical reception. And this should be allowed here, on Hari's page, like it is everywhere else on Wikipedia.

Regarding including a link to an article I wrote in a summary of Chasing the Scream, I did not leave out my name. I pressed the "citation" button and that's the citation that Wikipedia spit out. Once again, you are making assumptions about motives and methodology. I edit on Wikipedia under my real name. I'm not hiding anything. Many Wikipedia pages are written by experts in their fields and they often cite their own work. Books are written the same way. It's one way people know what to write.

I've added the paragraph in question to the subsection about Lost Connections. If there is a specific clause with which you still strongly disagree, please work to revise that specific section, only changing what is absolutely necessary to improve the page, as opposed to deleting the entire thing, for which there is no basis. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Each of those three examples are article about a work. This is not an article about an individual work, this is an article about an author of multiple books. As I said I understand that some other articles use this cherry-picking approach, and I don't think it's a good practice anywhere else, either. I'm not going to change my position just because you start insulting me. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell I am not asking you to change your position because I insulted you. I don't believe I did insult you. (If you feel insulted, I apologize.)  I am asking you to change your position because I provided examples where it is obvious that quoting from reviews is allowed and common practice on Wikipedia.

Your refusal to allow this here is arbitrary and unfair. I'm not sure that Hari’s books are big enough to justify their own Wikipedia pages. But I think they are big enough to justify some discussion on the author's page. And that's all I'm trying to do here. And include a fair portrayal of the critical reception that each book received, in the same style in which summaries of critical receptions appear all over Wikipedia. (Again, I am not cherry picking, as you continue to claim, but am taking care to select quotes that are representative of the whole.)

We've established that one is allowed to summarize critical receptions, and to do so on Hari’s Wikipedia page. You have written summaries of critical receptions on Hari’s page yourself. And we both know that you are allowed to quote from reviews, because I've presented multiple examples from high-profile Wikipedia pages. Indeed, this is standard practice across Wikipedia. But you will not let us combine these two things on Hari’s page.

I have made repeated attempts in good faith to follow your guidance and suggestions. I think we have to admit that we cannot arrive at consensus. I will look for alternative avenues to implement the changes that are needed to improve the quality of this page.

Tlupick (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You used the word "disingenuous" without realizing it's an insult?

Regarding the Guardian issue, the paper specifically notes that there were multiple articles about the book, and one of the author's of those articles is a scientist who called the book's attitude towards antidepressants dangerous. Removing that while trying to add inane cliched puff about how "incredibly readable" the book is starting to make this look WP:POINTed. Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC).

These edits suggest to me that we have a fundamentally different understanding of what "cherry-picking" means. To intentionally remove the unflattering part of a quoted sentence while preserving the bland and blurb-like first half of the sentence is pretty clearly manipulating context to emphasize a specific perspective. Harris did not say it was "powerful" in isolation and than only later say something bad about the writing style, he called it "gauche" in the same sentence. Downplaying through cheap writing tricks is not appropriate at all. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

"Neutrality in dispute" tag

I've placed a "neutrality in dispute" tag at top of the Hari page, and suggest it remain there until editors can reach a consensus on the Talk page regarding how to respond to Hari page editors emphasizing negative information and deleting positive information. (Acknowledging, of course, not everything can be split into the two camps.)

Multiple Wiki editors, including @Grayfell, have repeatedly removed neutrally-selected positive developments in Hari's career from the page; for example, Hari receiving a positive book review from a MSM outlet, or positive discussion in a MSM outlet of Hari's practice of making research notes and interview recordings available. The same editors have cherrypicked negative reviews and other negative information from niche media outlets and included them on Hari's page in place of deleted positive sentiments expressed by larger and better-known MSM outlets.

These are biased attempts to editorialize and create a picture that is more negative than reality. I suggest this issue be resolved on the Talk page before additional edits are made to the Hari page and before the "neutrality" banner is removed. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think its a fair short-term tag. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I want to add, I only inserted the “Neutrality” tag on the Hari page after repeated attempts to encourage further discussion on the Talk page went unanswered. I made multiple edits where I deleted or rewrote sections of the Hari page that I believed were not neutral, and with those edits, I explained my deletions and requested that conversation occur on the Talk page. Those requests went answered.

Rereading my original explanation for adding the tag (above), I acknowledge I am also, of course, coming from my own position of bias. (We all are.) But – to take one example – the summaries of critical receptions to Hari’s work that I wrote for the page, and which were repeatedly deleted, did include bad reviews as well as good ones. That’s evident in the page’s edit history. My goal is to improve the Hari page and get it to a place where it reflects reality, and I hope that we can do that, including negative developments as well as positive, but not only negative.

The Hari page’s neutrality is in dispute, and I hope we can now work that out here. Tlupick (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've already explained these issues multiple times. You've mostly just ignored what I've said and restored and emphasized bland, low-information blurbs while, at best, tepidly mentioning the existence of substantial criticism. Since, per above, you do not appear to understand what cherry-picking even means, this is just tendentious editing at this point. I'm fine with discussing these changes, but this constant attempt to lard the article with blurbs is totally inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've re-added one of the reviews from the Irish Times. We have one source writing in the Irish Times explicitly criticizing the problems with Hari's book, so to then attribute a more positive review to the paper at large is very sloppy, and is yet another example of how these reviews were being selectively summarized to promote Hari's work. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

My assessment of the situation is, we have one editor acting as a gatekeeper on the Hari page, deleting anything positive by labelling it “promotional,” while simultaneously adding negative reviews and other negative content. (Again, acknowledging that not everything falls into these two broad camps.) These negative additions are not wrong to include. But this does not make for a neutral page or for an honest reflection of reality.

One example (of many) is @Grayfell’s repeated deletion of this sentence: “…The Guardian's review also alluded to Hari's earlier examples of journalism malpractice that date to his time as a newspaper reporter, and in contrast, noted that in Lost Connections, Hari is "meticulous in revealing his methods" and made "copious" notes and interview recordings available to explain and detail his research of the book.” This section was deleted because, according to @grayfell, it was promotional and tried to “tell a story.”

At the same time they deleted that section, @grayfell added multiple sections to the Hari page that described other reviewers’ negative opinions of Hari’s citation practices; for example: “Writer/broadcaster Matthew Sweet investigated some of the statements in the book and found that Hari had failed to cite the primary sources for some studies, and misrepresented the results of studies that suggested multitasking could have benefits in certain conditions.”

Why was the first example deleted and the second example added to the page?

There seems to consensus that, because of Hari’s journalism malpractice 2001-11, the subject of his more-recent research and citation practices is valid content to include on the page. And there is agreement that negative evaluations and reactions to Hari’s contemporary research practices should be allowed on the page. But there is disagreement that positive evaluations should be allowed alongside negative ones.

Only allow negative content while deleting anything positive as “promotional” is a biased portrayal of events that departs from reality by slanting highly negative.

There have been many positive reactions to Hari’s post-2011 work, and these assessments should be allowed on the page alongside negative ones, of which there are already many included. Positive evaluations of a professional’s work are not “promotional,” but simply an aspect of reality. And as I have shown with examples elsewhere on the Talk page, they are standard practice for Wikipedia entries. Thus, they are required for a neutral and balanced Wikipedia entry here.

We need to find a consensus mechanism that allows for the inclusion of positive-leaning developments on the Hari page alongside negative ones. Until we can arrive at such a mechanism and see that it works, where positive information is allowed on the page alongside negative, I believe the “neutrality in dispute” banner should remain on the Hari page.

In terms of next steps, I will try to begin by writing individual sentences proposed for inclusions on the Hari page, and I am hoping that additional editors can weigh in to assist us in finding consensus, sentence by sentence. Tlupick (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

If you think I'm the only one who has a problem with these changes, you should review the article's edit history. You previously expanded the article to be much more detailed with the use of disproportionatly flattering language and blurbs. This expansions added a number of issues related to WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOTPROMO, MOS:WTW, WP:RECENTISM, etc. I've tried to fix the problems you have introduced. Some of your changes have improved the article, and I have tried to preserve those, but many have not.

As for "many positive reactions", this is far too vague and it doesn't matter anyway. Many people react to many things, and these things do not belong just because they are 'positive'. Further, we are not "required" to include such things at all. Our goal is not to help him sell more or less of these books. Our goal is to succinctly summarize who he is and why he is notable. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

From my point of view, Tlupick has been removing well sourced criticism and adding positive blurbs against the general consensus, seemingly to downplay criticisms of inaccuracy of Hari. They have removed a lot of well-sourced existing material from the scandal section.

Hari is most known for the plagiarism/fabrication scandal, certainly in Britain anyway. His most recent work has received very notable criticisms for inaccuracy - these were originally in a separate section for each book, and now they have been mixed in with positive blurbs, to the detriment of the article in my opinion.

I think it is wrong to take positive quotes like "meticulous in revealing his methods" as definitive, when in fact there are criticisms that Lost Connections used inaccurate interview transcripts.

It would make sense to restore the separate "criticisms for inaccuracy" section for each book, IMO. I think it is fine to note that his initial books were positively received, but surely it's more notable given the context that he still makes major errors - for example, falsely claiming that people took Ozempic in his most recent book.

It seems like there is a strong pro-Hari bias in the recent editing, which is of particular concern given the history of sockpuppet editing on this page. MedianJoe (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I can't think of a single criticism I removed that was "well sourced." The only criticisms I removed were sourced to individual's blog posts or Twitter threads. And I think we can agree that both are not great sources for an encyclopedia.

I continue to be amazed by the biases some editors here are showing toward negative points while arguing that nothing positive should be allowed because everything positive is "promotional." Again, I maintain that only allowing negative content is simply not a neutral, nor accurate, representation of reality.

As stated previously, I think we need a change in methods if we're ever to begin agreeing on edits here. I'll start by making small, very specific edits, and we can debate them one by one. Tlupick (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"I can't think of a single criticism I removed that was "well sourced." The only criticisms I removed were sourced to individual's blog posts or Twitter threads. And I think we can agree that both are not great sources for an encyclopedia." You just removed a review published in an academic journal. You stated intention to avoid Wikipedia bloat is contradicted by your monthslong fixation on adding promotional bloat. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I deleted that review from an academic journal because you previously instructed me to avoid adding reviews from academic journals, suggesting I instead focus on MSM publications. Now that you've undone my deletion and added back that review from an academic journal, I've again tried to follow your example, this time by adding a review from a similar academic journal. I trust you will leave this review where it is, since it directly follows your example and guidance. Tlupick (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever 'instructed' you to not cite any academic journal, nor would that even make sense. Either you have completely failed to understand what I've said, or you're not paying attention. I guess it doesn't really matter which at this point. The sole credential for the person whose review you added was that they are the "Helpdesk and Membership Adviser" for the journal's publisher. This is a journal which includes 'reviews of art, books, and film as well as viewpoints, polemic, and entertainment' in with its academic publications. This seems like a very flimsy review and the inclusion of this obscure review provides no real information about the author of the book. Even in an article about the book itself this would seem supremely superfluous and flimsy.

As I've said many times now, avoid cherry-picking, all sources must be judged in context, and padding out the article with redundant promotional cliches doesn't help readers. Grayfell (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sentence comparing Hari's current research techniques to earlier malpractice

There is a specific sentence under the Lost Connections subhead of the Hari page that summarizes one reviewer's discussion of Hari's research practices for Lost Connections and compares them to his earlier examples of journalism malpractice. @Grayfell has repeatedly undone or rewritten various edits to see the sentence written this way: "Sturges also noted Hari's earlier journalistic malpractice, attributing this to Hari's practice of making notes and interview recordings available." I struggle to decipher this sentence's meaning, and suggest there are clearer ways to present a summary of the source material in question.

One rewrite of this sentence I have attempted to add to page reads, "The Guardian's review also alluded to Hari's earlier journalism malpractice that dates to his time as a newspaper reporter, and noted that in contrast, with Lost Connections, Hari is "meticulous in revealing his methods" and made copious notes and interview recordings available to explain and detail his research of the book.”

I acknowledge that my version is longer. But given the central position that Hari's earlier journalism malpractice takes throughout his Wikipedia page, I think my entry -- relaying more recent information about his research practices, which actually receives relatively little attention on the page -- is worth it.

I am seeking support for my version of this sentence in an attempt to stop @Grayfell from repeatedly replacing it with his own version. Alternatively, if I cannot gain support for my version, I ask that we at least agree on a third, alternative version that is clearer in its meaning. Thank you. Tlupick (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that sentence wasn't great. I've rewritten it to hopefully be more clear.

My goal in editing each of these sections is to contextualize how these books relate to their author. Calling his notes "meticulous" is subjective and in this context, it's a peacock word. Cherry-picking this from a review doesn't fix that issue. Any summary which boils-down to so-and-so writer liked the book or did not like the book is more about the reviewer than it is about Hari as the author of the book itself. For each of these books, we have multiple experts in various reliable sources disputing that Hari's summary of sources is entirely accurate, so how 'meticulous' he is at revealing his methods, according to one arts-writer in one review, is basically irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Grayfell, your latest argument says we can include reviews that criticize how Hari has researched and sourced his books, but if we include reviews that praise his more recent research habits, that is just one reviewer's opinion and not worth inclusion on the page. This is again a blatant bias in favor of the negative, and again, not a neutral presentation of reality.

What you and other editors have done to the Hari Wiki page reminds me of the Wiki page for The 1619 Project. Many historians have criticized The 1619 Project, and those concerns are given priority on The 1619 Project Wiki page. But many historians have also defended The 1619 Project, and many more feel strongly enough about its accuracy and benefits to include it in their curriculums. But that barely receives a mention on The 1619 Project Wiki page. Only the criticisms are presented at the top. But while criticisms are perhaps more noteworthy (because who cares if people agree), criticisms alone are not reality. The 1619 Project page creates the perception that the magazine article was much more negatively received than it actually was. That's sort of what you and other editors have done here, scouring the internet for every and even the smallest criticism, ensuring it is given prominence on the Hari Wiki page, and deleting anything positive as "promotional" or, now with your latest message on the Talk page, as just one reviewer's opinion.

The sentence in question is better now that you've rewritten it. ("Sturges also noted Hari's earlier journalistic malpractice as a likely reason that Hari has made his notes, references, and interview recordings available.") But I still find its construct clunky, and it assumes the reader has information they may not. You need to say Hari made notes available, before saying why he made notes available. I've rewritten it as:

"Sturges also noted Hari's practice of making his research notes and interviews available, comparing this to earlier journalistic malpractice, and called Hari "meticulous in revealing his methods.""

If other reviewers get to say they have questions about Hari's citation practices in Lost Connections, Sturges gets to call them "meticulous." This is neutral reality. Tlupick (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Many other articles have many other problems. I am trying to edit this article in response to specific issues I see with this article.

From that, your approach here appears to be one of false balance. I am not particularly interested in counting how many sources like or dislike the book. As I said, Wikipedia isn't Rotten Tomatoes for books, and this article isn't even about the book itself. I am attempting to briefly provide context to readers. I maintain that adding the "meticulous" quote is cherry-picking. Here is the full paragraph:

It’s no surprise that Hari is meticulous in revealing his methods, given his past misdemeanours while working at the Independent. In 2011 it emerged that he had been using quotes from his interviewees’ books, and from previous press interviews, as if they had been given to him. Thus there are copious notes at the back of Lost Connections containing websites, journals and books consulted, while his interview recordings have been made available online.[4]

To slice-off the "It’s no surprise..." and "... given his past misdemeanours while working at the Independent" parts but still including the middle of the sentence is a form of editorializing. The reviewer isn't praising Hari's meticulousness, she is contextualizing why these notes and recordings are being included at all. Per the paragraph itself, this is the main reason this is even being mentioned. That's why this is cherry-picking to add promotional content to this article, and that's why it's not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing was "cherry-picked." I did not present any word or words in isolation or out of context. I included the Guardian reviewer's specific words ("meticulous," etc.) within a larger summary I wrote of the section where the words originally appeared. That is not cherry-picking. By deleting what I wrote, you are cherry-picking words for deletion, eliminating any positive connation in order to emphasize a negative sentiment. Once again, this is not reality. It is a negative bias. Since we agree this sentence is an important part of the page, but cannot reach an agreement on how it should be presented, I've instead simply included the reviewer's writing on this subject in full, using a quote instead of paraphrasing. Please do not replace this quotation until we have reached an agreement on how it should be paraphrased. Tlupick (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, we clearly disagree on what is and is not cherry-picking. You appear to be dead-set on including the word "meticulous", while I don't think this is word informative enough to justify such a lengthy quote.

Our shared goal isn't to present isolated factoids, it's to summarize. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a PR service. To repeat myself: For each of these books, we have various topic experts and reliable sources disputing that Hari's summary of sources is entirely accurate. How 'meticulous' he is at revealing his methods, according to one arts-writer in one review, is basically irrelevant. To put it another way, "meticulous" is not the same as "accurate", so why would this bloated quote matter to readers of this Wikipedia article? Our goal is, as an encyclopedia, to summarize, and our goal is to summarize for the benefit of a disinterested reader. We are not trying to help Hair with his PR, nor are we trying to recommend the book or help him secure his next deal to to write another. So how does this puffery about how "meticulous" he was help disinterested readers? Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of positive review alongside addition of very similar negative review

@Greyfell deleted the following summary of a review of Lost Connections from the Hari page:

"In the British Journal of General Practice, Thomas Bransby wrote that Lost Connections is a “perfect balance of fictionalised non-fiction and factual evidence, coupling diverse personal narratives with an intense investigation into the failings of Western society to better connect us all.”"

He also added the following review summary:

"Psychotherapist Tom Strong, writing for the Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy in 2018, said the book covers some well-worn territory, comparing it to psychologist Gary Greenberg's book Manufacturing Depression (2010), John Bentley Mays's memoir In The Jaws of Black Dogs (1999), and William Styron's memoir Darkness Visible (1989).

Both these reviews' publications and authors are similar in nature. I suggest that if one of these reviews is included on the page, they both be allowed to be included on the page. I am seeking consensus on this point and will appreciate other editors' feedback.

I also submit this combination of @Greyfell's deletion and addition as part of a pattern (for which I will continue to submit examples) where he is deleting anything positive from the Hari page and in turn adding anything he can find that is critical of Hari and/or is work. Tlupick (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Who, exactly, are you talking to? You are once again misrepresenting the situation. As I explained above, they are not "of similar nature". If you're just going to ignore what I've written, it starts to seem like the only purpose in starting these new sections is filibustering.

As I indicate above, Bransby is not a topic expert, they are listed in that source as part of the journal's help-desk. The source is flimsy and was not being used to provide enough useful information to justify its inclusion. "perfect balance", "diverse", "intense"... all of these are vague peacock terms in this context. A non-qualified reviewer of a pop-sci book liked a book. What, exactly, is that factoid supposed to tell readers of this encyclopedia article?

I tried to summarize Strong's review without including whether or not he personally liked or disliked the style of the book, because he isn't a literary critic. Mentioning the existence of other, related works, as identified by an impartial topic expert, is not "negative". Unless your goal is to promote Hari's work as being somehow revolutionary or unprecedented. This kind of PR-management is not appropriate here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Multiple sources directly say that this book was not revolutionary or unprecedented, despite Hari's claims or the book's marketing to the contrary. Even positive reviews point out that Hari summarizes existing academic sources. My addition of Strong's review was an attempt to provide context, not inane puffery about how "perfect" the book supposedly was. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Bransby is an assistant editor at the British Journal of General Practice. You don't get to entirely dismiss the review and delete it from the page because you don't like the background of the person who wrote it. His publication and his title at that publication are relevant to the subject matter. In addition, the section I quoted from the BJGP's review says much more than how you have summarized it on this Talk page (ie. "vague peacock terms").

Both of the reviews in question were published in medical / healthcare academic publications. Either they will both be included on the Hari page, or neither of them should be included. Anything else is one editor's exercise of their personal biases. As such, I've added back the summary BJGP review. If it is deleted again, than we also cannot reach a consensus on the inclusion of the Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy review, and it should be deleted as well. Tlupick (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Judging by other edits to the article and other comments on this talk page, I do not think this approach is going to work for you. False equivalence and toothless ultimatums are not productive. Being an assistant editor doesn't make them a topic expert, and even if they were a topic expert, it wouldn't magically transform this cherry-picked quote into useful or appropriate information to highlight in an encyclopedia article. The review doesn't say anything of substance about Hari as a writer, and that's the entire purpose of this article. This only use for this kind of inane blurb-style puffery would be to help Hari sell more books. This isn't Wikipedia's goal, and if it is your goal, as your actions here increasingly suggest, you shouldn't be editing this article at all. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)