Talk:David Aaronovitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Islamophobia 2 Oxbridge jargon 3 University Challenge 4 Question 5 Stephen Glover on this article

[edit] Islamophobia

Most of the islamophobia section is superfluous. All that is needed is a short paragraph saying what the accusation is, and maybe one reference to back it up, along with Aaronovitch's defence. Any more than that makes it take up a disproportionate amount of the article Nomist 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And that the principle critic of Aaronvitch's alleged islamophobia, the IHRC, is itself anti-semitic........

[edit] Oxbridge jargon

He was sent down from the University of Oxford at the end of his first year

What does that mean? He failed his first year? He was expelled?

Being 'sent down' usually refers to going to prison, surely?

Jenks 07:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but in an Oxbridge context, it means that he was expelled. See [1], [2]. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change it as it should be in a wide context --Ebz 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When you start at Oxbridge you "go up," and when they kick you out, you're "sent down." ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University Challenge

I'm not certain on this one so I haven't attempted to edit the main article, but I suspect Aaronovitch's alleged involvement in the infamous UC appearance by Manchester University is an urban myth. I've seen that clip many times and I've never seen him on it.

I promise you it isn't. He appeared in the 40th anniversary documentary on the subject confirming it.

[edit] Question

Do you think there is anyway that one could include a section pointing out that Aaronovitch is an objectionable, reactionary, sycophant whose narcissism and self involvement is only matched by the lack of any significant coherent output to justify his self love? [These comments were posted by 68.71.35.93 06:20, August 21, 2006 (UTC)]

No, because such comments would soon be removed for violating the NPOV rule. However, comments from any reputable source on an article's subject could be cited as deemed appropriate. Philip Cross 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that's POV so much as generally accepted fact.

[edit] Stephen Glover on this article

A 7 Sep 2007 column discusses this article:

The longest entry I have been able to find – there may be longer ones – is David Aaronovitch of The Times. It is over 1,600 words, and split into seven sections, the last of which is 'Further Reading.' We learn that David attended Gospel Oak primary school until 1965, and was a member of the 1975 Manchester University team on University Challenge which lost in the first round. We are not spared the ins and outs of his journalistic odyssey, and are treated to long quotes from his columns. It is difficult to believe that David himself did not have a considerable input into his write-up.

-R. S. Shaw 06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As it happens I heard D.A. speaking at a conference today where he touched on the subject of Wikipedia (the theme of the session was the future of content). He said he didn't edit his own entry and was bemused by the "randomness" - I think that was his term - of some of the material therein. Barnabypage 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)