Talk:Hans Köchler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Please note: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Insulting phrases, unverifiable statements, personal evaluations, etc. must be removed immediately. Wikipedia's BLP rules also apply to the talk page.Max543 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Abuse of Wikipedia by WikiFlier in violation of BLP rules

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for political campaigning. WikiFlier is trying to make Wikipedia a political vehicle. The repeated denigratory remarks by WikiFlier about Kochler are a proof of his intentions which have nothing to do with editing an Encyclopedia article. The rules for BLP have to be enforced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.55.33 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship by WikiFlier

Why did WikiFlier remove the information from the introduction that Kochler is the Chairman of the Philosophy Department of the University of Innsbruck in Austria?? This information has to be kept in its original place. Removal of this information on Kochler's basic professional affiliation is censorship and vandalism.69.230.55.33 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

69.230.55.33 displays considerable chutzpah in accusing Wikiflier of "censorship" after deleting a large chunk of Wikiflier's contributions on this site. Köchler's professional affiliation with the University of Innsbruck is clearly stated. The fact that he is head of the department as well as a professor is an organizational detail that is simply sufficiently relevant to readers outside the university to merit mention in the introductory paragraph. Köchler's academic standing (such as it may be) derives from the fact that he is a professor, not the fact that he runs the university department. Both facts need to be documented by appropriate references. WikiFlier 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems that WikiFlier's selective and biased editing is designed to unbalance Köchler's biography and smear his reputation.Phase4 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
'Wikiflier responds: It seems that "balanced" is a euphemism for "censored". It is NOT the purpose of Wikipedia to safeguard a "reputation" is built on censorship, suppression of verifiable information and lies. The purpose is to present a variety of verifiable facts about the article subject. Wikipedia is not (yet) a Köchler cult site. WikiFlier 20:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The bit about his title seems more than an "organizational detail" but unworthy of being the lead sentence. How about it gets moved to the second sentence, with the first sentence becoming something like "Hans Kochler is an Austrian philosopher"? Also, everyone needs to be more civil and stop making personal attacks. MrVibrating 10:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not perfect but I'm content with the "protected" version of the article as it stands. As I've said elsewhere on this page, the intro is not the place to focus on just one of Köchler's many meetings with third-world politicians. These appear to be more than adequately covered in the "Conferences and speeches" section.Phase4 14:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) I do agree with the above proposals and comments by users MrVibrating and Phase4.
(2) The focus on just one political meeting in the lead paragraph has already been removed once by administrator FCTravis as an undue-weighted reference.
(3) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography and has been rated by editor Sappho as category B with the remark "properly sourced with inline citations, this could be 'a' quality" (4 March 2007).
(4) Sufficient references to political contacts are given in the section "International Impact."
(5) Wikipedia's rules for BLP must be observed and the article must be written in a neutral tone. These rules also apply to the talk page.Max543 (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Way forward

In the article's section "Conferences and speeches", why not include a full and factual list of all Köchler's conferences? This would be encyclopedic and would avoid all the disparaging and denigratory remarks that WikiFlier is trying to import into the article.Phase4 (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of raw data. A failure to mention Köchler's extensive contacts with third-world politicians means that the article is a Köchler cult piece. So yes, the matter must be mentioned in the original paragraph.
Lastly, please refrain from interfering with the paragraph formatting on this page. Your last round of edits left the body paragraphs running into each other, thus making the entire page hard to read. I have reverted those changes, but preserved your last post. Your understanding is appreciated. WikiFlier (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, the right place to mention "Köchler's extensive contacts with third-world politicians" is in a dedicated section such as "Conferences and speeches". To highlight in the intro just one of these many conferences, as you are proposing, suggests that you are pursuing either a vendetta or a POV agenda.Phase4 (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion. However, contacts with third-world politician have been the defining feature of Köchler's public persona over decades, and are exhaustively detailed on his personal websites, IPO and www.hanskoechler.org. NOT to mention this in the introduction is like describing Arthur Conan Doyle as a "practicing physician", and relegating mention of his fiction writing to a later section. Such a characterization would be formally correct, but not true in substance because it misses the essence of what made Conan Doyle famous. Regards, WikiFlier (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
All very well, WikiFlier. But what you are proposing is — from Köchler's many contacts with third-world politicians — to highlight just the Gaddafi encounter in the introduction, because it suits your agenda (which seems to be to smear Köchler's reputation). I repeat my view that these extensive contacts — if notable enough — should go into a dedicated section of the biography, such as "Conferences and speeches".Phase4 (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to Phase4 Version because of undue-weighted reference in lead paragraph and ongoing vandalization of text by WikiFlier

The Gaddafi reference is to be placed in the conference section of the article, not in the lead paragraph. Wikipedia is not the place for WikiFlier's political agenda. Max543 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kochler's philosophical contributions to the debate on a just world order

Kochler's thinking had a considerable impact on world order debates in countries such as India, the Philippines, and in other regions outside the Western world. His work as a philosopher is to be understood in connection with his international activities. His earlier contacts with leaders such as the late Gyani Zail Singh (President of India) or Léopold Sédar Senghor (President of Senegal) have to be understood as part of his well-documented efforts at improving North-South understanding. It is him who introduced (in the 1970s) the paradigm of "cultural self-comprehension," applying Gadamer's hermeneutics for a philosophy of dialogue. His assignment as UN observer at the Lockerbie trial in 2000 came long after he had already been known internationally through his contributions to the theory of international relations and civilizational hermeneutics. (See the extensive media coverage since the 1970s.) A biography must present his philosophical and organizational record in a balanced manner and without undue-weighted references. Nithayanandan77 (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above view. The reference to the Lockerbie trial shoud be removed from the lead paragraph. In the present version, undue weight is given to Köchler's role as UN observer at the trial. He had established his position as philosopher and international NGO activist long before his involvement in the Lockerbie case (in 2000). Furthermore, Wikipedia has a dedicated page on this activity: Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission. A link to that page should suffice.Max543 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) The version of the biography which was online before November 2007 was more balanced.Max543 (talk)
It will be best to restore the version of October 2007. Kochler's contributions to international relations theory and to the dialogue among civilizations should get more attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.15.235 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Could either of you link to your preferred version from the history? Thanks. Relata refero (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a good version. It could do with some formatting and a little more referencing, but I think its acceptable to start off with. Relata refero (talk) 08:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The version of 10 November 2007 is the preferable one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans_K%C3%B6chler&oldid=170519945. Max543 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that a link to the Finnish (Suomi) version of this page (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_K%C3%B6chler) is missing on the left side of the English version. Can someone add it?218.185.71.66 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under the section "Köchler on", can you please add a new subsection titled "9/11"

{{editprotected}} On 21 February 2008, Köchler was reported as saying that "9/11 may have been an insider’s job", adding that "in terms of destruction caused, these incidents cannot have been exclusively organized by a shadowy network of Mujahedeen from the remote places of the globe. The causes officially given for the incidents are not a sufficient explanation for what actually happened on that day, especially as regards the logistics of this highly sophisticated operation and the very advanced infrastructure required for it."[1] --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is notable enough for the page as it stands. Please also note that scoop is an "independent news source" like indymedia and thus not really acceptable on a BLP. Relata refero (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
N Not done There is no consensus that this edit has consensus, and it is not specific enough. Please code up exactly what text you would like added to the article, and develop a consensus here for it before requesting it be added to the page. Happy‑melon 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My message above is the exact text, starting with "On 21 February" down to the end of the reference markup. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, but I still think its not notable or from a reliable enough source to go in. Relata refero (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)