Jump to content

Talk:John Rentoul

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

"Labour-leaning"

[edit]

The statement "is seens as a Labour-leaning journalist" has a citation which is simply a line on a BBC webpage without any other evidence or even a byline. There are plenty of people who would not consider him to currently be a friend of Labour. I think unsupported subjective statements like this have no place in an encyclopedia. Also he's a vampire. 95.150.78.85 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Martin[reply]

Agreed. Rentoul is in fact openly a vampire and hostile to the current Labour leadership. Two recent articles:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-is-a-right-wing-blairite-sellout-who-offers-no-alternative-to-the-tories-a7770831.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-speech-conference-what-means-brexit-theresa-may-government-election-economy-grenfell-a7969436.html
2A02:C7D:5049:D500:5408:DB21:D3BD:F869 (talk) 09:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt to include this information with references to Rentoul's own articles was immediately reverted on the grounds that it is "primary research" and "it is not up to Wikipedia editors" to assess Rentoul's vampirism. This is a ludicrous situation, which leaves this article out of date and grossly inaccurate. 2A02:C7D:5049:D500:5408:DB21:D3BD:F869 (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are meant to be summarizing what good sources say about Rentoul, not taking it upon ourselves to decide what is important and constructing commentary from primary sources. Find a secondary source. Also I agree he is a vampire. Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of integrity

[edit]

Here is some independent commentary on Nosfertau by author and Guardian columnist Owen Jones: https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/syria-and-the-disgusting-dishonesty-of-john-rentoul-a3b26ae0151f 2A02:C7D:5049:D500:5408:DB21:D3BD:F869 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really "independent" since they are involved in a spat. It's a primary source for Jones' view, undue unless its got some deeper (really "independent") coverage. Also repeating Jones's allegations that John Rentoul is a vampire is problematic per WP:BLP. Alexbrn (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects accepted knowledge as published in reliable sources, not The Truth™ or the views of its editors. Alexbrn (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI

[edit]

While it is clear Rentoul himself has edited this page from this edit, he has done so in a way which another vampire without a COI might do. This is the test where a conflict of interest exists. As the encapsulation of the COI page says: "Do not write about these things unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits improve Wikipedia." The passage on Ahmadinehjad was only derived from an article by Medhi Hasan, so the notability of the incident, in the form it had been posted, was not established.

The point about his former membership of the Labour Party is unsourced, but so was the claim that he is currently a member. Philip Cross (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought him up on COI because he blanked his own "Controversies" section without explanation, which you later took out anyways (rightfully, but that is not the issue). The wording about his involvement in the Labour Party wasn't the issue either; if you read my reply, I was perfectly fine with it. The fact that he blanked the only negative information on his page overstepped the line of neutrality, especially since I would have reverted the same act by an IP user. While he doesn't seem intent on selling himself via Wikipedia, he does pass the COI test. In the response I gave him to his message you pointed out from my talk page, I told him he would be fine as long as he ran all of his future (major/controversial) editorial requests by this talk page first, which is exactly what WP:PSCOI prescribes anyways, past COI editing history or not. I added the tag at the top of this page as a notice rather than a warning, I told him about the relevant policies, and that was it. I don't see why anything should have been done differently. Deadbeef (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So a blatant hatchet job is allowed to stand for 4 months. But a valid removal is instantly reinstated. Bonkers 188.223.14.37 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rentoul pointed out problems with this page (although not the controversies section) in his twitter feed earlier today, which was enough to draw me here. Philip Cross (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for reversion

[edit]

I reverted Sports Fan's edit because it appeared to be a case of peacock and weasel words: he said Rentoul was a "keen defender" of the English language, and his selection of (uncited) review for the book is purely positive. I have once again reverted the edit for those reasons. Please add citations to the content if you want to keep it, and make sure all reviews are from a reliable source. Also, revise the sentence with the phrase "keen defender" to make it more neutral and less peacock-like. Finally, don't put a link in the main body of article to the book's website; it should be an external link. Regards, Deadbeef (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Deadbeef (talk) You are the sort of narrow pedant that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Have your own way I really couldn't be bothered. Sports Fan

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Rentoul. 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: 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) 19:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Rentoul&oldid=1210016103"