Jump to content

Talk:Owen Jones

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CanterburyUK (talk | contribs) at 12:39, 14 January 2024 (→Importance?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Corbyn

Why was the mention of his support for Corbyn been removed? Owen was one of Corbyn's biggest champions in the press, this is a bizarre thing to omit. 2A00:23C7:5581:EA01:2950:A927:5CD3:4CE2 (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely unsourced. Feel free to provide sources and suggested phrasing and make an edit request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look for sources, then stopped when two good ones, one of which is a direct interview by The Guardian, shows him critical of Corbyn. [1], [2]. So I don't think the text proposed by the IP can be added as it's contradicted by mainstream sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first does not appear to contradict being one of Corbyn or Corbynism's biggest champions. Being able to note some of Corbyn's flaws a year after his leadership ended does not prevent someone from being a big supporter -- particularly when it is "his big asset was also his weakness.. his compassion, his genuine humanity. Here was a person who refused to engage in personal attacks on his opponents".
That article notes "'His new book, This Land: The Story of a Movement, is an insider’s account of the rise and fall of the Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party.'" stating that he was an insider in Corbyn's movement, to the point of being able to write about it.
Something like "He is closely identified with Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party"?
While Unheard is perhaps not the best source, https://unherd.com/2020/10/oh-dear-jeremy-corbyn/ has a great quote "Jones was an early cheerleader for Corbyn, campaigned for him, spoke at his rallies, advised him, served as his most prominent mainstream media defender and was otherwise central to the whole movement."
This seems worth incorporating into the article, no? WorthPoke2 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the ability to edit the article: is there any chance of adding something noting that he was closely linked with Corbyn, has written a book on Corbynism, and that the FT's chief political correspondent described Jones in a review of that book as "the Corbyn project’s most important media cheerleader and semi-insider"? https://www.ft.com/content/88370aa8-9d4f-4713-b0c6-3ea3e0d67f69 WorthPoke2 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would expect that merits a mention but seemingly not. After all, his three years as one of Corbyn's main outriders pales in comparison compared to his ADHD diagnosis. One wonders why people don't want this included. 92.40.196.2 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to add paragraphs about his position on every other Labour leader too? Since his support for Corbyn was in line with his politics, there's little that's noteworthy about it in the context of the article. 79.77.68.123 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. You say it is 'completely unsourced' to suggest Jones was a cheerleader was one of Corbyn's cheerleaders and yet you accept the below. I am new to wikipedia edits, could you please explain how it works around here
Harris writes: "In 2015 Jones performed at his rallies as a warm-up man, and helped build a social media campaign aimed at persuading Labour MPs to nominate him 2A02:C7C:D72D:DA00:D586:5092:9383:B3B2 (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn’t known that calling someone ‘clearly partisan’ was bullying, duly noted 2A0E:CB01:15:1200:CDF8:C588:5E89:D455 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How was the last edit a personal attack?? It’s simply saying that Owen Jones was a supporter of Corbyn, what is wrong with that? Please confirm your reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D72D:DA00:977:3CB3:62E3:4B8B (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "simply saying that Owen Jones was a supporter of Corbyn". If that was what it was then I would not have removed it. It was personally abusive to another named editor and directly sought to bully that editor out of the conversation before ending with a vague attack on Wikipedia itself. That was completely illegitimate. If you have a point to make then make it civilly and, provided it is on-topic, it will not be removed. DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years?

There seems a surprising absence of anything recent on this page. Stops around 2013, with a quick mention from 2020; and one line from 2023. I will attempt to find some more recent updates that make sense for the reader to be here. Does any other editor have any suggestions of things we could add - or is Jones no longer of interest to the Wikipedic process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To start off; [[3][I have added his 2020 book and 5 RS secondary sources]]. Maybe 5 is too many? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 300 word review for his book needs to be removed as per Wikipedia policy, thanks
Wikipedia:Too much detail 92.40.200.2 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
300 words? That would remove the entire mention about his book?
Which Wiki policy are you referring to? CanterburyUK (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added brackets to what the IP said, and voila: Wikipedia:Too much detail. But it is not policy, only an essay explaining policy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx @Hob Gadling - my question would have been better phrased as: what details can be removed? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section on his Video on the 'Hamas Massacre film' as he calls it: and a wide bunch of secondary sources discussing it. CanterburyUK (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vladimir.copic
I have now put back a section heading titled: 'Response to his video about the 'Hamas Massacre film'; which in 1194512520 Vladimir.copic had entirely deleted: which was their 2nd deletion of content mentioning Jones' video.
After the first full deletion some days ago I re-wrote the content with fresh sources. After the second 100% deletion today I have again invested time - and shortened the quotations from the sources; and added another RS.
May I request Vladimir.copic that you NOT delete it all again but rather first engage here in Talk - after that, and hearing other editors views: we can reach consensus for an edit of this section
Unless: are you making the case that Jones's video should not be mentioned at all, under any circumstances?
If that is not your case: then could you suggest which -of the sources I found are useful to the reader to retain: - and for each: what text you'd suggest: they are
CanterburyUK (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many issues with the section you have inserted (and now re-inserted) that I briefly detailed in the edit summary. I'll go through some of them again:
  • It is heavily reliant on quotations from WP:RSEDITORIAL and at times sourced to WP:PRIMARY.
  • It has overlong direct quotations (see MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG) many of which are not followed by a citation.
  • The section titled "10 days after Jones' video..." is entirely unrelated to Jones and, where cited, is sourced to articles that do no mention Jones.
  • I do not see a case for this information being WP:DUE at this length and in this format and it seems to be trying to give a certain POV about Jones' statements.
  • This is the article of a BLP and in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area so required a high level of sourcing and editing.
Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Vladimir.copic
You have not answered 'Yes' to my question 'are you making the case that Jones's video should not be mentioned at all, under any circumstances?'. For the avoidance of doubt - I interpret this as you being OK with this section heading remaining (albeit different content).
You wrote:
> It is heavily reliant on ... WP:RSEDITORIAL ...
Can you be specific: which of the ones I listed would in your view be OK to keep in?
> It has overlong direct quotations...
I have already reduced several, can you show what specific quotations you would be happy with?
> The section titled "10 days after Jones' video..." is entirely unrelated to Jones...
So I have deleted that section.
> I do not see a case for this information being WP:DUE at this length and in this format ...
Can you suggest here in Talk: the exact text that would be suitable in length and format? CanterburyUK (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the current sourcing, I would say that it should be completely excluded, yes. First, you seem to misunderstand WP:PRIMARY; WP:RSEDITORIAL pieces are primary sources for the opinion of the writer. They are not secondary sources in the sense people mean above, and cannot be used to establish facts in that manner - none of the sources you've added are usable for the core of the matter, just for establishing that "person X thought Y", in situations where person X's opinion is manifestly relevant due to their expertise, connection to the subject, etc. With that said, my main issue is that over-reliance on WP:RSEDITORIALs. Talking heads say all sorts of things about each other; the standard for a section like this, about something framed in starkly negative terms, would require significant amounts of secondary coverage from high-tier sources. Even then, leaping straight to a massive section would be WP:UNDUE - provided at least one secondary non-opinion piece can be provided, a carefully-worded sentence or two saying that he posted something that others criticized could be justifiable (not an entire paragraph, and certainly not an entire section), but even that would require at least one secondary source, and more than that is going to require heavy secondary sourcing - devoting entire paragraphs to talking heads is inappropriate for something of this nature, especially when many of them seem to lack subject-matter expertise. Why are their opinions and feelings about this so noteworthy? Also, WP:ABOUTSELF shouldn't be used for BLP-sensitive material either, so we can't use his youtube video itself as a source - the core source for any inclusion needs to be high-quality secondary coverage, rather than an ABOUTSELF video by Owen Jones himself and then opinion pieces criticizing it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also sharply trimmed the weight given to The Land. While the problems aren't quite as severe as the above because it doesn't raise as many BLP issues, it was still wildly WP:UNDUE. Due weight needs to be weighed against what's already in the article - look at the paragraph we devote to Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, and the extremely broad, WP:SUSTAINED, high-quality sourcing we give to that. It's absurd to suggest that either of the new additions could be due more weight than that based on the existing sourcing, so at the absolute most, assuming they can similarly be supported by secondary sources, they could have a similar amount of text - that is to say, two brief sentences, certainly not their own section. --Aquillion (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is also completely inappropriate; we certainly cannot cite an opinion piece unattributed in the article voice, and it's unlikely that Stephen Pollard's personal opinions and feelings about Jones are WP:DUE even with attribution. ---Aquillion (talk)
  • I attempted to pick out the usable parts of this series of edits but there were just too many glaring problems to do it piecemeal. Aside from the obvious issues raised above:
  • The biographical details that were removed because they relied on sources close to the subject weren't appropriate removals; those are valid WP:ABOUTSELF details, being uncontroversial biographical information that is not particularly self-serving. And the replacement source, an author's bio in the Mirror, was even worse; The Mirror isn't a good source per WP:RSP, and author's bios are usually considered roughly the same level as WP:ABOUTSELF anyway (because the publication is also not independent from the subject.) This change wasn't an improvement.
  • The added reviews were largely from comparatively obscure sources and placed undue weight on them relative to what was already there. Why would Prometheus Journal be considered relevant enough to get an entire sentence and significant quote to itself when weighted against eg. The Independent, New Statesman, the Economist, and other high-profile publications? Why quote Melissa Benn at length when we're quoting no one else?
As I mentioned in an edit summary, WP:CSECTIONs are generally inappropriate for BLPs (even aside from the fact that the content was basically a rehash of the material above, still with undue weight and still just consisting of editorials.) But more generally, one of the edit summaries said that this needs to be in for balance, the article isn't a promo for the subject, should be warts and all, and that isn't how WP:DUE works; that is WP:FALSEBALANCE. We weigh aspects of the subject according to their weight in reliable subject, not based on what an editor feels is the desirable number of warts; we don't devote an entire section or paragraph to a handful of talking heads who took issue with something the subject said unless there's secondary coverage indicating that it's important. And, likewise, we don't include every single review, just the ones that are highest-profile, most significant, and which give the best sense of how something was received overall; quotes in particular should be chosen cautiously to avoid introducing unnecessary POV (see the general guideline at WP:QUOTES, especially the warning about quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias. These quotes don't seem to be representative or dispassionate summaries of the things they were pulled from. --Aquillion (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Importance?

I do not agree with the importance or quality ratings given to this article. Owen Jones isn't a member of government and has never been elected, he holds no important roles, the article cannot be of high importance, although he maybe to his supporters. The article is a start, not C class, it lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated.

Subjects he is active on seem to be considered contentious, although he is very outspoken about his views, widely published by himself online, these subjects, added by various users, result in reverts here, is Owen Jones involved in edits to his own article? He has recently been tweeting about this article on his Twitter account. https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1725956422326689805 The article seems to promote a public image,

Subjects are,

His support of Corbyn

His views on the Palestinian - Israeli conflict

He is very outspoken on those subjects, yet they don't appear,

On quality and importance, the ratings need to change, without offense to Owen Jones he is not of high importance,

WikiProject icon Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government C‑class

change to Start class

WikiProject icon Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

change to Start class / low importance

WikiProject icon Socialism C‑class High‑importance

change to Start class / low importance

WikiProject icon University of Oxford C‑class Low‑importance

change to start class retain low importance

Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class High‑importance

change to Start class / low importance

Please confine replies to this talk page. Pennine rambler (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to back your opinions on what the article ought to focus on, and the weight it needs to give them, with sources. Currently, the article contains a lot of high-quality sources for the things it currently discusses; if you feel that his support of Corbyn or his opinions on the Israel / Palestine conflict are central to the topic (central enough that it would be incomplete without significant focus on them), you need to find WP:SECONDARY non-opinion sources discussing them in-depth - high-quality sourcing that clearly establishes that this is something notable about him, not just something one or two randos wrote in an op-ed or mentioned in passing. I removed the I/P section because it was entirely about a single youtube video with only a smattering of opinion pieces (as you can see in the discussion above); and your bits about Corbyn had similar problems. Can I assume from the thrust of your comments that that was why you inserted the specific quotes you did? I did notice they all mentioned Corbyn. The problem is that that wasn't even the focus of the sources you were relying on - pulling quotes like that isn't the way to establish that something is central to the topic, certainly not central enough to declare it incomplete without it; nor can you pull a line out of an op-ed and drop it in the article as a statement of fact. If his support for Corbyn is in fact central to his notability, to the point where the article is incomplete without it, then it should be easy to find lots of high-quality secondary sources that are primarily focused on it, discussing it in-depth. EDIT: I should also mention that Corbyn was discussed recently (see the discussion above) and nobody was able to find any useful sources there, either. It seems like one or two people view him that way; but if it hasn't gotten any traction outside of their opinion pieces or reviews then it's probably not WP:DUE, and certainly isn't something we can say in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"nobody was able to find any useful sources there, either" - that's simply not true. Ritchie333 'searched' for sources until he found one that partially contradicted the OP's post. Owen Jones was a major media cheerleader for Corbyn and wrote a book about his time as Labour Leader, why don't you want this included? 92.40.196.74 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pennine rambler I agree with the overall point you're making regards important content being absent here (for me: his Book and the Hamas film)
Hence in December I had started the Talk paragraph above: 'Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years?' . Inviting other editors to share ideas for new content. No one suggested any themes.
IN summary:- My editing since has achieved something, small, of value to readers: his 2020 book now gets more content than before. In good faith I have put up new content, and taken time to find 3rd-party sources. Some editors did not agree with what I put up. 90% has been deleted. But do they have the consensus of editors. The evidence below, suggests not perhaps.
And note that @Vladimir.copic has  raised a formal complaint about my.
In brief:
4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) Only Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic have opposed it
Details: Two themes where I took effort to add value to the page
=== A) The page had been silent about his 2020 book ===
So on Dec 19 I added it together with 3rd party reviews of it. In the next 10 days 3 other editors made small corrections to that new content - indicating the 3 were happy with the content.
Aquillion has since removed a bunch of the 3rd-party refs
=== B) His video "I Watched The Hamas Massacre Film. Here Are My Thoughts"[1] ===
On 8 Jan I added this section to the page
It contained a number of notable people's comments to Jones' video: notable people had commented on: eg Eg ex-Guardian journalist Hadley Freeman; Andrew Neil, Melissa Benn, Rachel Johnson.
@Vladimir.copic reverted it - after Talk here on 10th I re-instated and I removed a section that they objected to. That day - 3 other editors made minor changes to the new Hamas text. Evidence that 3 people did not object to it
Nevertheless, later that day Aquillion reverted it all.
So - I'm open to have this explained, but it seems that Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic do NOT have the consensus of the editors here?
If those who try to bring in more recent content to this page give up, due to the combative nature of other editor's responses: it will leave readers badly served by this page: that suggests Jones has done nothing of interest since 2020. CanterburyUK (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ I Watched The Hamas Massacre Film. Here Are My Thoughts., retrieved 2024-01-07
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owen_Jones&oldid=1195581827"