Talk:Jani Allan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Neutrality tag

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