Talk:David Farrar (blogger)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete[edit]

A related article was previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwiblog - SimonLyall 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to David Farrar (New Zealand)[edit]

Rename as above. thoughts? - SimonLyall 07:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I guess Farrar is more notable as a New Zealander. --Lholden 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mr Lyall[edit]

I would debate whether David Farrar is an "important" blogger or commentator. If we continue to allow this Wikipedia will be clogged to it's knees with every blogger and his dog having an article. I can think off the top of my head around 5 NZ commentators who have been on TV, have blogs but do not have Wikipedia articles (often deleted for questionable notability). I would also question the tone of this article as it's almost a verbatim of DPF's bio he wrote for Kiwiblog. Bactoid 10:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been through the AFD process. NBR seems to rate him fairly important and he appears in the media on a regular basis (at least one hit a month in the Herald's search engine). We are not adding bloggers in any great amount otherwise - SimonLyall 10:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Lyall he was recently featured in the NBR where they satirized him and basically "took the piss" for want of a better phrase. This doesn't make him important. Bactoid 11:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced article doesn't appear to be the one you are talking about. I think I saw a reference to the one you mean though. I think the fact that NBR would bother satirizing him could probably be taken as a positive for him being notible. I doubt they would bother doing so for somebody that nobody had even heard and which their readers wouldn't get the references to - SimonLyall 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a rule about re-opening AfDs after a certain period, isn't there? --Lholden 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship and other accusations[edit]

The blogosphere has recently erupted in debate regarding Kiwiblog. There have been accusations of leftist posters being censored and banned for expressing opinions that don't follow the blog's centre-right theme. There is also talk of a significant link between DPF and the National Party with many now thinking of Kiwiblog as the unofficial blog of the National Party. I think this should be highlighted along with some other changes as right now it is showing some bias. There are also exerts that are verbatim from DPF's own personal bio he has written on the blog. I suggest expanding upon the Kiwiblog stuff at the beginning of the article putting it under it's own heading. It should express some general facts such as how long it's been running for, it's recent popularity and the introduction of moderation including the accusations of censorship. Bactoid 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of points. 1. Need references for censorship stuff. 2. I don't think the link between David and the National party is exactly a secret. 3. Alternative sources of bio information would be good. 4. I'm not sure that a right wing blogger deleteing left wing comments on their own blog is news? - SimonLyall 11:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV dispute[edit]

What's the POV dispute here? --Lholden (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

Can we add something about David's personal life? Is he married, dating or still available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaheraangel (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See a recent New Zealand Listener article for material which could form the basis for an expansion of the article. According to that, he's not married but his current situation is "complicated".-gadfium 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am "still available" and the situation is no longer "complicated" :-) DPF (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to David Farrar (blogger) as per general consensus. Everyone who supported the move as proposed also supported this title.(non-admin closure) Red Slash 07:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


David Farrar (New Zealand) → David Farrar (political activist) – I suggest we rename this article to bring it in line with naming conventions for people as per WP:NCPDAB, where it says: "the disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being." The problem with Farrar is that he's noted for not just one thing, and that appears to be the sentiment behind the 2006 renaming request. I'm not set on "political activist" at all and suggest that the previous dab "blogger" is a contender, too. He is certainly noted for being a blogger. --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Schwede66 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Same or change to New Zealander I'm inclined to stick with "New Zealand", the other labels are all partial gits. In the case of "Political activist" , he doesn't seem to do a lot of actual activism. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to David Farrar (blogger). Whatever it's called, he clearly isn't a "New Zealand"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stick with New Zealand. As Schwede notes above, David is known for a number of things (i.e. activist, commentator, pollster and blogger) as well as being a former public servant. The main reason "New Zealand" was used - as in other articles - is to distinguish this article from the US actor of the same name. --LJ Holden 22:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguators don't have to be comprehensive - they only have to distinguish one person from another, so any one of his "occupations" is fine. On the other hand, we decided long ago that country names alone shouldn't be used to disambiguate individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here seems to be that "New Zealand" is a very nice way of differentiating this person without having to pick one of his many roles. However you are claiming that this violates policy in that "New Zealand" is not a noun. I would suggest that "usually" is the key word in the policy and perhaps "New Zealander" might be an alternative. I would also note that since David is a controversial person changing his description to "political activist" from a neutral term like "New Zealand" doesn't help the NPOV of the article. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to use "New Zealander" in this case. As Necrothesp so succinctly puts it, he clearly isn't a "New Zealand". In order to get within policy, we should be working towards removing all the "New Zealand" dabs from NZ bios, and given that Farrar is a controversial person, "New Zealander" would in this case be a useful compromise. Schwede66 07:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I asked David directly and he said on twitter My preference is the status quo as political activist is just a sub-set of what I am - SimonLyall (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is not in the slightest bit relevant, since "New Zealand" goes against our normal disambiguation practice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not dead-set against geographic disambiguators for people when there isn't another practical option, but there is here. I prefer the move as proposed—if his blogs are political, (political activist) seems more all-encompassing. But I'd be fine with (blogger) as well. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "blogger" Based on a very quick scan of the article, it looks like that's how he's most easily identified. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Farrar (blogger). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Farrar_(blogger)&oldid=1194268485"