Talk:Jani Allan/Archive 1

NPOV

Her views are described with a light touch, to say the least. The whole thing is rather fawning. Bartleby (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For anybody with no background knowledge on Jani Allan's past, this will not be very enlightening at all. As a public figure, Jani Allan is widely considered to be a bit of a joke in South Africa. This reads as though Allan herself has written it and she has used the post to justify some of her heavily criticised comments on things like Boer genocide in SA and also to make out as though she shouldn't have lost the libel case. The entry is far too long. It cites minor events and facts about Allan. She is known mainly for the embarrassing episode involving Eugene and not much else. Information about her marriages, history, driving a red ferrari etc. are extraneous and simply muddy the entry.EmjayE2 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I think this is looking much better, it's more relevant and neutral. Any other points can be added here. Teatreez

Teatreez, are you in fact Jani Allan or closely associated with her? Zaian (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am not Jani and have not met her. Ok well can you outline some of the points which concern you. Much of the article has already been changed and streamlined. I mean most positive sentiments are sourced. And in the instance of her career as an english teacher, are aided by experience of one of her student's. TeatreezTeatreez (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a better explanation of your single-minded dedication to this article? You are virtually the only contributor to it, you have contributed to virtually nothing else, and you appear to have an unquestioning admiration for and comprehensive knowledge of the subject. As it happens, I don't think you are Jani - forgive me if I say so, but your standard of writing does not look like a journalist's. However, you do appear to be close enough to her to have a likely conflict of interest. Is that the case, or are you simply a big fan of hers? Zaian (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I do think that Jani is a top journo. In particular I suppose it was the events around Jani that interested me, the libel case, journalism in SA etc. But no, there is no conflict of interest. But I'd say that I just became more interested in expanding the topic as I researched further and learnt more interesting facts and details.

Well I created this article from scratch (perhaps I'm too easily attached, made the classic wiki error of forgetting that I do not 'own' the article), I found it ridiculous that there are articles on such obscure things, yet nothing on one of South Africa's most famous journalists. I dislike how some of the media present things as 'fact' when it comes to Allan, especially concerning an association with ET. This is also the case with the libel case, losing the case did not spell out that there had been an affair. Besides there are all sorts of legalities involved when it comes to the libel case and carte blanche has not been given for people to assume and turn what may be 'rumour' into 'fact'. The libel case was about defamation, not whether or not there was an affair. I have simply presented two sides and further details in some instances. The problem I find with people talking about 'neutrality' is that it should mean negativity, just as the status quo goes among the SA media towards Jani Allan. Generally speaking, I'd say this article is more balanced than the SA media and people's misconceptions regarding a person.

I see nothing wrong in outlining career achievements. Not many journalists can boast columns with the Sunday Times, Spectator, and a radio show to their curriculum vitae. The columns were successful, the radio show and appearances were successful, Buthelezi had kind words for his good friend, why should these not be stated? Once again, I ask you to outline anything that strikes you as contrary to wiki's standards.

I suppose this started off as a pet project, really just to see what it was like to create a wiki article, I also created the Sandra Botha article. But with bomb blasts, court cases, Green cards and freedom of speech all added to the mix, it has been insightful and interesting. Teatreez (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you say you've never met her, are you going to state outright that you have no conflict of interest?

Anyhow, I've trimmed and tidied up a bit, and added some of the more glaring details that Teatreez and/or Allan would rather not see mentioned, like the "blowtorch eyes" quote, but which are obviously more notable than some of the stuff which has been included, like the tedious laundry lists of minor columns. The article needs a lot more to be removed or summarised. Zaian (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest. I think it's rather neutral now?

Ok lets tick boxes, intro is fine, ET association is fine, libel case is fine and doesn't really prompt any legal challenges, Buthelezi part is fine and intersting too, columns are fine (although perhaps subjects need to be trimmed), radio is fine and factual, other and spy work is a good content point and correct. As for causes, well she has been vocal on this topic, and talked about it to millions of radio listeners, so I think it deserves a mention. As for 'present' that seems fine as well. Teatreez (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Objections to the entry

My main objection to the entry is that it reads like a subtle justification of some of Jani's extremely offensive views (e.g. on white genocide) and as an explanation as to why she is perceived so negatively in the media. It smacks of a persecution complex and isn't encyclopaedic. Jani is a public figure, and therefore her reputation as a public figure is what needs to go in the entry. It is not Wiki's place to change that reputation. Buthulezi's kind words haven't been widely publicised. If you ask any SA about Jani Allan, they don't pipe up with: Oh yes, the woman who was accepted as a white Zulu. It's just irrelevant. In the entry, she is presented as a victim of the media, which I suppose to a certain extent she is, but losing the libel case surely spelt out that there was enough evidence to speculate about the affair. Even if one dislikes the way that Allan is presented in the media, Wiki is not the place to battle it out. It's unfortunate for Allan that this is how she goes down in history, but that's the way it goes.

Also, I can find no evidence of Jani having worked for The Spectator. Numerous journos have written columns for the Sunday Times. It's no biggie. Recent radio show appearances have been limited to the conservative right-wing conspiracy theorist Jeff Rense show. This is hardly a career achievement. If there hadn't been all the speculation around the Eugene Terreblanche affair, I very much doubt that Allan would even warrant a Wiki entry.41.241.185.114 (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think perhaps because of personal life media coverage, many of her career achievements have been overshadowed. Yet Face to Face and JustJani were very popular columns for the Sunday Times, where she worked for a decade. I mean Face to Face included interviews with the politcal elite of the era. As the Sunday Times was the biggest Newspaper publication in Africa at this time, and with Allan leading the main column, I think it was quite an achievement. At least in the context of 'South African journalism' she deserves a mention.

I have contacted the Spectator on this issue, some more obscure sources state it. But there's little other mention of it so hopefully the Spectator will be able to confirm whether or not this was the case. However, I know that currently they have a South African correspondent, so the previously assumed dates of her working for the Spec whilst in London could be incorrect. Teatreez (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The question to you, if you are J. Allan or closely associated with her, was very legitimate, teatrez.--Severino (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I do apologise for any lack of clarity, but it's a no on both counts.Teatreez (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Neutrality tag

Is this still necessary?Teatreez (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

the article anyway is much too long and too detailed compared with the relevance of the person. i don't know the wikipedia guidelines about that. beside that, the content of the article still is biased and a contributor could have an interest conflict. --Severino (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

a "source" which posts this: "Dear Jani, aka: PRINCESS COOL, you still are, and still a beautiful one at that!
I'm here to wish you a HAPPY BIRTHDAY from all of us here at African Crisis! We are looking forward to the day we can see you here again!..." is clearly not a reliable and unbiased one, especially when it deals with this one person. --Severino (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"She was fired from Cape Talk radio because of her increasingly right-wing commentary". I think this is speculative and not factual. Generally when her show was accused of being 'right-wing', it was usually because of the views of her guests. In particular this was the case when she interviewed Johnson of the Militia of Montana, and the African Crisis founder Jan Lamprecht has also been a guest. I think that the cancellation of the show had more to do with some of the right-wing content it dealt with rather than the host herself. Perhaps something like "She was fired from Cape Talk radio because of the increasinly right-wing nature of her radio show". Teatreez (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that Jani herself holds right-wing views; otherwise why invite such persons to speak on your show? The section in the entry about distancing herself from the Militia's stance is a bit soft. The BCCSA says viewers complained because she didn't question his views ... that amounts to endorsing them, which is why the station had to issue an apology. It seems equally obvious to me that she was fired because of the right-wing nature of the show; whether she made the comments herself or whether she allowed others to make them is besides the point. The quote from the station manager is just a polite press release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmjayE2 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be conflicting reports on what caused offence, according to the American Jewish Year Book 2000 "Jani Allan distanced herself from Johnson's views" and it goes on to say that she caused offence when she did not initially say it was a mistake to broadcast the interview. Although following the backlash, she did apologise for this. That said, reading between the lines of the BCCSA judgement, she offended some listeners by not questioning Johnson on his negative views towards Nelson Mandela. Bearing this in mind, in SA, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter/hero. Teatreez (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Piano concerto

I once read an article about her in which it was claimed she'd recorded a piano concerto in her younger days (she was apparently an accomplished and precocious musician).

I seem to remember she was ten at the time she recorded it. Is there any confirmation of this?

"""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltingpot (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I read something similar a while ago, she is a trained classical pianist I believe. However for the moment, there does not appear to be an online source. Teatreez (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

South African?

the person is born in the UK, lives in the USA and in-between she lived only partly in South Africa. what makes her south african? does she hold this citizenship? --Severino (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, when I researched this there were conflicting sources. One said that she was British-born and another said she was born in Gauteng. I came to believe that the British-born source was more reliable. From my online research I found that she was adopted at age 1 by a British-South African couple and was brought up in between both countries.

That said, I do not know whether she has spent more years living in South Africa or in the UK? And now one would assume that she is a naturalized American citizen.

She is a British-Born South African residing in America perhaps? sounds confusing.

That said, when I have read an article about her, she is usually referred to as South African journalist Jani Allan. Also, I don't know if you ever heard her Cape radio show, but she does have a South African accent.

Sources: http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click _id=13&art_id=vn20040620111324523C719376 New York - Controversial former South African journalist Jani Allan is back in the news again.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07EFDE153AF93BA35752C0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 So feared was his cross-examining -- a talent that came to be known as Carmanizing -- that one of his victims, a South African journalist named Jani Allan who lost a suit over claims that she had had an affair with a neo-Nazi politician, told him, Whatever award is given for libel, being cross-examined by you would not make it enough.,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/law.huttonreport So said the South African journalist Jani Allan,

http://www.newstatesman.com/200204080039 The Carman-Suchet cross-examinations of witnesses in the 1978 Jeremy Thorpe murder conspiracy trial, and of Gillian Taylforth and the South African journalist Jani Allan, made the palms of your hands sweat.

Although American conservative publication WorldNetDaily uses this line Jani Allan is a British-born journalist and talk-show host. She spent many years in South Africa.Teatreez (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

she has the "south africa" label, yes. but this is an encyclopedia and something of that kind should be questioned here. --Severino (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is, although in this case I think that nationality could be considered as something rather subjective. Perhaps there should be more emphasis on Allan as an English-speaking South African? Teatreez (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jani's South Africaness is what she trades on. She's known as SA, spent most of her life here, still comments on SA politics, rewording the sentence to say she is British-born and American-naturalised is simply confusing.EmjayE2 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the article already mentions that she's British-born and resides in the US, so there isn't much need for it. Teatreez (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jani Allan popping up in other wiki entries like a dreaded virus

So I am happily looking for info on the SABC and am surprised to find that Jani Allan's interview is listed as one of the broadcaster's main events. So i check out the history and am not suprised to find the author responsible: Teatreez. Info on Jani Allan under an SABC entry is completely irrelevent. Either this user has very little idea of what is relevant for a wiki entry or he/she is on a strange mission to popularise Ms Allan. Please account for these edits, Teatreez. What is a single interview with Jani Allan doing on an SABC entry when there is not even mention of the broadcasting of Mandela's release from prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EmjayE2 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh gosh that was such a long time ago. I was just demonstrating the varied interviews and such that the broadcaster has held. I did consider it relevant considering how much coverage the libel case got, this interview was a bit of a coup for the SABC to have gotten considering it was a follow-up with the woman at the centre of an international news story. Well wiki is for all, any suggestions to improve the extensive entries and their relevance is a good thing. Teatreez (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

African Crisis Angels Project

I am concerned about the inclusion of this supposed project. It comes from an incredibly right-wing website, and the given source does not lead to any information abou the project. I think, that unless the African crisis project is contextualised as racist, sexist and right wing, it should be removed. The website supports links to articles which speculate about IQ differences between the sexes and the races, articles which encourage white SAs to teach black SAs incorrect job skill and it contains bogus photographs of supposed farm attack victims. It is hardly journalistic or verifiable. I'm removing it.EmjayE2 (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it is regrettable about some of the content you mention, thankfully the majority of the references for this entry are from reputable British, South African and American news publications. Teatreez (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

article

the article in it's present state consists mostly of unneccessary details and gossip. --Severino (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's bitty, too long and full of irrelevent detail. I think the first sentence just about sums up all that needs to be said. EmjayE2 (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, quite a few fixes made-Teatreez (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)