Talk:Johann Hari

When should new books be added?

He's about to publish a new book. When can that be added to the Wikipedia article for an author? It's already scheduled and he's enough of a pro to be confident it will actually happen, too. But now that I think about it that way, anything that prevented it from reaching the market at this stage would be worth mentioning in the article... Shanen (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a long policy on this somewhere but there is no problem mentioning a forthcoming book, or other publication once there are reliable sources available to cite. Ktlynch (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a book titled "Wolves Eat Lambs: The Pornography of Power" with a chapter on Johann Hari. As illuminating as the determined campaign to keep this wikipedia page spic n' span. Doubtless Hari will marshal the forces of digital darkness… littera scripta manet. The man he's a sickly amanuensis for, Mr Brand, I dearly wish he were over in the Russian frontlines… whose conduct he excused so vacuously, and so dreadfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:8B06:5F01:7D17:ED0C:EDDA:F59B (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

And… paperback and hardback alike, 'temporarily out of stock': in its first week. You're a piece of work, Hari. It's impressive. Undeniably impressive. The way Dr. Goebbels or Bernays were impressive. Mercifully, we live in a digital age of eBooks and again, littera script manet. |unsigned]] comment added by 2A00:23C7:8B06:5F01:7D17:ED0C:EDDA:F59B

Switzerland

I'm curious about his Swiss background. Interviews with him refer to his father being an immigrant from Switzerland to Scotland (I presume, because his mother is Scottish and he was born in Glasgow). But what then? The infobox gives him citizenship of United Kingdom and Switzerland. How do we know the latter is correct? I haven't seen any references that ever mention any connection he has to Switzerland, other than his father. Hari is also described as "British-Swiss" in the opening sentence. Is that correct? Is that how he sees himself? I don't know. Compare to how Wikipedia introduction sections describe Michael Portillo as British, Emma Raducanu as British, Keanu Reeves as Canadian and Naomi Osaka as Japanese. Mika is useful because whilst he's described as "Lebanese-born British", his infobox stating US citizenship is backed up by a reference. This takes me back to Johann Hari. Should "British-Swiss" be replaced with "British" and/or should the Switzerland citizenship be take out? Seaweed (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Now he's described as Scottish with citizenship as United Kingdom and Switzerland, the latter unreferenced. Seaweed (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

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)