Talk:Jonathan Calt Harris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Clean-up Suggestions 2 Claims lacking sources 3 Jonathan Chait Harris 4 "This article is being edited by his supporters" 5 Comment from subject of article

[edit] Clean-up Suggestions

This article is missing supporting references for many of the claims it is making -- this issue should be remedied. --70.48.69.93 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims lacking sources

I am moving claims that I can not find support for from the article into this list. --70.48.69.93 22:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• "and has given money only to Republican Party and Republican candidates" (I searched Open Secrets but could not find any Jonathan Harris that has only given money to republications.)

[edit] Jonathan Chait Harris

User:Tickle me says that the addition I made claiming that he is sometimes referred to as Jonathan Chait Harris is bogus. Since I added that, I would like claim for the record that this incorrect name is used in the following articles: [1], [2]. But now I see that there is such a person as "Jonathan Chait" at the New Republic -- thus maybe the articles above were confusing the two names. --70.48.69.93 01:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate this distinction/clarification being made (as does, I'm sure, Jon Chait). Has come up before. --Joncaltharris 21:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "This article is being edited by his supporters"

Editor Max Rspct has re-inserted the claim that Harris is "A protégé of neoconservative Middle East scholars Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer,", on the basis that "This article is being edited by his supporters". I have no idea who Harris is, and had never heard of him before editing this article yesterday; the claim may well be true. All I've asked for is a citation from a reliable source which makes this claim. Can someone please provide one? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"had never heard of him before": same with me, however, "A protégé of" smacks of weasel word and is contended - so what's wrong looking for sources first and editing later? So far it's an allegation. "edited by his supporters": would his detractors be preferable? Justifying a revert like that is inane, in the end it's the edit that counts. Deleting an unsubstantiated imputation is reasonable, as is asking for a reliable source first. --tickle me 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering the fact that this is a living person, WP:BLP would indicate that contentious claims should not be put into the article unless they are properly sourced. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Harris is well known for attacking a large number of Middle Eastern professors via Campus Watch via a number of outlets. I guess well-known is context dependent. --70.48.241.41 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from subject of article

Hello to all, I just discovered all of this - or actually had it pointed out to me. Appreciate the edits on my behalf and am going to go over the previous versions. Most corrections seem quite good at first glance. Don't mind being called a protege of Daniel Pipes, as he was my boss for two years, but can understand why it was cut. Have a feeling that the originator of this page was hoping to disparage me, and now it seems that the fine volunteers at Wikipedia have thwarted that. Quite affirming of the human character, I must say. And, I'm not claiming all those editor actually agree with my positions either, obviously. They just went for actual facts over 'scuttlebut', which is always good to see. --Joncaltharris 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)