Talk:Hans Köchler

Untitled

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)

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/enwiki/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)

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." --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)

 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)

References

Article cleanup

Contents have been rearranged, some chapters have been combined and entries summarized. The Lockerbie entry has been moved to the dedicated Wikipedia page. The article is now shorter and better structured.Max543 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed and evaluated according to Wikipedia standards as ¨B¨ quality. The explanatory note of the editor was:

properly sourced with inline citations, this could be 'a' quality --Sapphic 17:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC) The length was not an issue; the issue of the online citations has been dealt with in the meantime by several editors. If part of the text should be moved to a new page, the editor making this suggestion should give hints how he would like to proceed. 194.204.223.38 (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

@Volkstod:@Nithayanandan77: Please discuss your rationale for or against having the particular content you are edit warring about here in the discussion. This refers especially to you, Volkstod, as you simply delete content without presenting a rationale for this. As you have been asked several times, please give reasons for your edits and engage into a discussion with the other user. LucLeTruc (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@LucLeTruc: Stop censoring me by threating myself with blockation. This whole article is some kind of extreme absurd EULOGY about an extrem irrelevant person, but the article is longer than that of Obama. Obviously somebody wants to make as much PR as possible for this BLP-person. And i am not afraid to say that. And i will stopp this abuse - no matter what it will cost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkstod (talk • contribs) 22:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volkstod: This is the first time you've ever actually even made any form of attempt to engage in a content discussion. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on the talk pages of relevant articles. Rather than treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, it would be appreciated if you were to engage in a WP:CIVIL discussion. Please assume good faith in the same manner that other editors have been trying to approach you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Volkstod: I did not "censor you by threatening blocking". You made quite a bunch of similar edits where you simply deleted well sourced content that other people deemed relevant without giving an adequate reason and continued getting into edit wars with users without discussing the reasons for your deletions. Such behaviour is considered Vandalism and Disruptive editing here on the Wikipedia and will eventually lead to a block if it continues. I (and several other editors) have contacting you with slowly escalating notices on your discussion page explaining this issue and politely asking you to stop this harmful editing behaviour. Until your attack here without any response. It is not up to you to decide what is a relevant person and what is relevant information about this person (see Relevance for more information). You must discuss this with other users and you can only delete such content if it is (1) non sourced or (2) biased which is clearly not the case here and in several other articles where you censored such content. Best regards LucLeTruc (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hans Köchler. 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/20071110021625/http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1060352007 to http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1060352007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)