Talk:Daniel Johnson (journalist)

Deletion

Against Three books, the work on chess is reviewed in the current TLS; an ex-leader writer on two prominent British dailies and the editor of a new magazine which has garnered a good deal of publicity. Since when has length been a criteria for removing an article? Philip Cross (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Against. Has appeared in the British "Who's Who" for fifteen years straight, his magazine has a circulation of 20,000 in the first three months, is still taught in journalism classes as an example of famously successful interview strategy, from his 1989 subtle interrogation of the local Communist Party secretary in East Berlin, which caused him to reveal that the Berlin Wall was about to be torn down. Johnson was therefore the first journalist in the West to break the story, before it actually happened. User:Oriana Naso

[For] 1) Lots of non-notable writers get a review in the TLS. 2) Not everybody in Who's Who is notable enough to get their own Wikipedia article; heck, I've been in the U.S. version at least once, and I'm a very non-notable journalist. 3) 20,000 is not much circulation for a magazine. 4) If this interview is so famous, where are the references (with citations) to it in the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite so on 1 OrangeMike, but almost all non-notable authors don't gain a review in prestigious publications, putting aside the fact that Johnson senior is reportedly a friend of Rupert Murdoch. While 20,000 does not put Standpoint in the mass market, in the UK it is quite good for a 'minority interest' or refereed publication. Incidentally, the American version of Who's Who clearly has a diffrent criteria for inclusion to the original. In the UK version you are in until you are confirmed to be dead; Lord Lucan is still listed I think.Philip Cross (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"Reportedly"? Reported where? Is that article incorporated into the Wikipedia article? If the guy's a frontman for the Tories in the classic tradition, then there should be some puff pieces extolling his virtues out there that can be referred to. (I'd be asking the same questions if he were an obscure flak for Old Labour interests, of course.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Against

You wanted citations about his notability: http://www.nysun.com/arts/arguing-the-world-standpoint-a-new-british/80909/ http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/05/28/introducing-standpoint-the-english-get-a-magazine-for-grown-ups/

For you, Orange Mike, I'm only going to give the reaction from the major Leftwing publications, cos that's what I read, because I don't have time to run a search for all of the rightwing ones. But I guess you consider the Guardian noteworthy enough?

The guardian devoted its leader to the launch of his magazine, which is pretty serious as a notification. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/30/anglicanism.religion http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2283076,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/02/pressandpublishing.television

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/29/voicesfromtheright http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/25/pressandpublishing1?gusrc=rss&feed=media

http://blog.prospectblogs.com/2008/06/04/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/can-prospect-and-standpoint-be-the-best-of-enemies-812040.html

And moreover - have you seen the quality of their advisory board? Tom Stoppard (who gave the launch speech extolling Daniel Johnson http://standpointmag.com/Speech-at-the-Standpoint-Launch), David Hockney, VS Naipul, Nigel Lawson, Gertrude Himmelfarb etc.... http://standpointmag.com/about-us

And that's not including the Right wing media or the blogosphere (which I might do when I have more time and aren't about to run off for work). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.208.114 (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

comment - These are all excellent arguments for the notability of the magazine (and indeed, some of these should probably be incorporated into that article). But to what extent are they coverage of Johnson the journo? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Johnson (journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080601095321/http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/about-us to http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/about-us
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/will-standpoint-fall-at-the-first-hurdle-1214898.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)