Jump to content

Talk:Owen Jones/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Education

I have included additional information on the subject's education which necessitated a changing of the existing wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.155.200 (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lousy dab

Feel free to emend the phrasing in the hatnote, but the fact remains that "(writer)" is a terrible dab. The architect's design handbook is more prominent than anything this subject has written and the "antiquary"'s entire job consisted of writing and publishing others' collected writings. There's yet another Owen Jones who was responsible for the prominent national/historical dictionary Cymru who was a writer.

We need to change this to something that actually disambiguates its subject, whether that be (journalist), (born 1984), (from Sheffield), or what-have-you. — LlywelynII 04:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life

The whole Personal Life section (well, the whole sentence) is a joke. 'Jones is gay and lives in London'? Really? Full stop? Either more should be added or the whole thing should be left out, surely.81.178.214.52 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you that some people in the provinces would say that is all you need to know about him. William Avery (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of The Establishment

I am removing the sentence " It received seven consecutive negative reviews on Amazon.com upon being released, prompting Jones to request that his Facebook followers give it positive reviews." which references http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09/05/how-to-launch-a-book-by-owen-jones/ because it doesn't give a balanced view of how the book was receives. In fact, it is a clearly biased article making fun of the book receiving trolling reviews on Amazon within hours of launching - indicating that the reviewers clearly hadn't read it. I think if this page is going to have a sentence explaining how that book was received, it should at least be balanced. Otherwise, there is more info (including info about the trolling article on the book's own page). I am writign this here by way of explanation as I see that sentence has been removed and re-added now. Mcgrubso (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal - I'm fairly dubious about this source apparently by a 'conservative icon' --nonsense ferret 19:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Milo is defending Jones from the "trolls". Viz: "I am very sympathetic to the problem. Amazon’s review system is rotten, and authors are right to be furious about the lack of oversight and how easy it can be to hijack a book’s performance in the charts and to permanently damage a first- or second-time author’s career. A few malicious reviews can set the tone of a book’s reception...I no more want to see Jones’s book torpedoed by trolls from the right than I do my own torpedoed by trolls from the Left. It’s not acceptable behaviour. I mean, please: when it comes to books, leave the sneering, vindictiveness, childishness and disingenuousness to those of us with our names on the dust jackets...I should say, contrary to internet rumour, there’s no suggestion this was conspiracy, rather than cock-up: that is to say, there is no evidence Jones was responsible for the seven reviews that so traumatised him he was forced to unleash the mob. Indeed, I apologise for introducing the idea to readers’ imaginations". If you think that is "making fun" of Owen Jones, your brains would splatter the wall if you ever went on 4chans /britpol/ board '''tAD''' (talk) 07:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
OP is a fanboy and has a clear conflict of interest in his love for all things Jones, deliberately manipulating a source to suit his POV. [1] Before you say anything, I have also put negative reception of Nigel Farage's book. '''tAD''' (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Neutral

The whole article smacks of a praise job, its not neutral at all. Can we make it more balanced? . Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree! There's nothing about criticisms about him (of which there are lots). Andrew Neil has caught him out big style a few times! One thing the article does reflect though is that he's never had a real job in his life! He's been to University, he's worked in Parliamentary offices and for Trade Unions, he's worked in media but he has done absolutely nothing outside of the political bubble and has no actual knowledge or experience of the real world! He is just an ideologue! That's all he has, his beliefs, he doesn't actually know anything. I mean it's just pitiful whenever you hear him say anything about the economy! It really is!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor above has been blocked indefinitelyAusLondonder (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that all of the criticism seems to be put in the blog sections of various news sources. If somebody actually wrote an article, rather than a blog post, criticising Jones then there would be no problem putting it in. The lack of criticism in the article makes it look hagiographic, but I can't see how to balance it until proper criticism appears in reliable sources.-- Mrmatiko (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sheffno1gunner, you have some wonderful suggestions. Let's add a section "Never had a real job in his life!" to Wikipedia. While we're at it, we can add sections for "Doesn't actually know anything!" and "! !!! !!Big style!!!!"

Depends what you mean by reliable sources. The term "reliable sources" can often, and is often, just another label for something that fits ones confirmation bias or wishful ideal. Personally I have plenty of criticism of Jones and I've seen plenty of criticism from others and I don't see that blogs are necessarily unreliable sources. Frankly this wiki page smacks of a Owen Jones fan club's love fest. There should definitely be a criticism section covering Jones's bias, his tendency for poor research and that awful book laughably called "well researched and eye opening".

I'd write it myself but it probably wouldn't get past Wiki's moderation and would likely be accused of bias (ironically).

The Telegraph blog, for example, would be an acceptable source, as it is connected with an established publication. It is the self-authored blogs which are not admissible here, or adding your own opinion - unless they happen to coincide with published reliable sources. Philip Cross (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Education

Hello Bbb23, (regarding this edit) I think it is reasonable to include mention of an honorary doctorate award alongside discussion of his other educational qualifications. This is just including factual information and the reason why he was awarded it. Calling the inclusion that cites proof of the award 'puffery' seems to me to be more of a bias than an edit in favor of 'neutrality'. Just my two cents. Matthew Charlesworth (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

why is this article so long?

Are sections 2.2 through 2.9 really needed? Is there going to be a new section for every subject that he writes about? A weekly columnist and frequent media pundit is going to express views on dozens of topics. Is it necessary to include all these sections on various topics he's commented on? It seems like fans of Owen Jones are getting carried away documenting all their favorite Owen Jones moments. There seems to be a celebratory tilt to the writing covering all of his views. I think sections 1 and 2.1 are all that are really needed for an article on him. Most writers and commentators aren't given this much attention in their articles and that is the benefit of those articles. Those articles keeps the notability of their subjects clear and concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betsandhedges (talk • contribs) 03:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it reads a bit like a hagiography, or at least a CV. I've nothing against Jones and share many of his political views, but he's just a run of the mill journalist and columnist. --Ef80 (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Read his articles

There is no need for this wikipedia to be so long. No other author's page contains their musings on everything and if you wanted to read Owen's views on things then head to his Guardian profile. Next time someone reverts his page back in full (to show his thoughts on Venezuela? Trump? 2011 England riots???) then please state your reasons. There are strong rumours Owen is doing this himself - hence the hagiographic nature of the page - and this goes against the Wikipedia ethos. Owen - please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.33.250 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's horribly excessive. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss any large-scale deletion of content on the talk page rather than blank the page. Incidentally, it ought to be clear that neither of the two editors who have made significant additions (myself and another editor) are Owen Jones. Philip Cross (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I will take your word for it Phil. Having said that please state your reasons for why such a long page is required, he has written just two books, no-one cares for his criticism of American exceptionalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.33.250 (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is it's much harder to get content out of WP than it is to get it in. This article gives undue weight to his opinions, most of which are not notable, but taking it out will be more trouble than it may be worth. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Support of Corbyn

As a lifelong Labour supporter I find it disgraceful that you have removed his renouncement of Corbyn. For decades many of us have been waiting for a real left wing Labour leader and in 2015 we finally found one. The fact that Owen turned his back on Corbyn due to back opinion polls - through a 6,000 word essay no less - and has since whitewashed his role in a disgrace. Many on the left and in Momentum find this very difficult to forgive and this should certainly be featured on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.33.250 (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of Corbyn, but I thought the issue you raise was interesting enough for inclusion, although for the opposite reason to yourself. I thought Owen Jones was basically right, but another editor considered it unnecessary. You might like to look at it (use the edit history to locate it), and see if it could be the basis for an expansion of the section about Jeremy Corbyn. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Phillip though defending Owen's decision to abandon Corbyn because it was the right thing to do strikes me as peculiar. At the end of the day the rumours of Owen writing this page are growing by the day and the fact he voted for Corbyn in the election - Labour for crying out loud - will never deflect from his treachery. At the end of the day I feel sorry for the chap as he is neither accepted by Momentum nor the mainstream but I do feel this site should accurately reflect what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.33.250 (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed this here. I removed a section on Jones' criticism of Corbyn as it was (a) weirdly and POVly worded; and (b) formatted incorrectly. Feel free to add the content back in if necessary. (Also, side note: I am not Owen Jones, in case anyone was wondering) J.M.Ike (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Other interesting items that might want to be included in the page...

Well known for plagiarising articles from other writers and lost his job as an opinion writer for the Independent (UK Newspaper) for doing this. Despite his voiced opinion of keeping the internet free and opposing privacy laws he seems to have used European “right to be forgotten” legislation to expunge any references to this from available internet searches. Think what you will.


You are thinking of Johann Hari, rather than Owen Jones. Please do not add this false information again. Philip Cross (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Hi i noticed his DOB is referenced on his own twitter account, and then by a secondary reference to an archive blog which from my quick search contains nothing about his DOB, i don't mind removing my edit asking for a citation but would like to know where it came from and am ready to talk about it in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.132.178 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2019

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Despite some opposition, there is a majority in support of the move, and they have solid evidence with page views, that he is the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


– He gets 7x the views of all the others combined.[2][3] Unreal7 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Not true. Unreal7 (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh really? What about the Owen Jones (architect) who "helped pioneer modern color theory"? Seems pretty long-term significant to me.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What's not true? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose by arguments of Zxcvbnm against arguments of PC78: longterm significance cancels out recent fame in this case, leaving no clear primary topic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Page views show the writer is the most popular Owen Jones by a significant margin. The writer has, over the last 4 years, 20,000 or so views per month compared to the architect at about 2000. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:RECENTISM is about article content. Primary topic is about navigating to articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Much as I should prefer it not to be so, the architect is (and others are) of insufficient interest to stop this writer and media personality from being the primary topic. William Avery (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support The stats are pretty compelling (since 2015, has consistently received around 90% of the views of all Owen Joneses, and an order of magnitude more views than any other Owen Jones). I think commentators like Jones tend to get a lot of wikilinks, when their opinions are quoted in articles about topics they've written about ("Journalist Owen Jones argued that...") but which they weren't directly involved in. This in turn could inflate their page views (relative to the number of people searching for them). Jones is linked to from a few popular articles like The Communist Manifesto, Identity politics, Chav, etc. But even accounting for that, I think he still meets the criteria for PT. The long-term significance concerns are valid, but given the steady numbers over the last 4 years, it's not exactly a flash in the pan thing. Colin M (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
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.

Communist

What is the difference between a communist and his political positions? I cannot detect any. 62.226.83.161 (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources do not describe him as either communist or member of a communist party. Feel free to propose a source if you think that is the case. --MarioGom (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Left wing in the lede.

Hi. I just accepted this pending change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Jones&diff=920758137&oldid=920725561 as it seems reasonable to me. As he is described as left wing in the press this could require discussion. He is a Labour party activist and that is what was replaced. I note that the Labour party is considered left wing which made me decide the change was acceptable. His lefy-ness if it is a primary facet of his notability could well be better described in the body of the article. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Why?

This person isn't significant enough to deserve a |Wikipedia article. 31.49.9.128 (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The extensive number of sources would seem to indicate otherwise; please review the the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Being a Guardian contributor isn’t enough. They have thousands of contributors . Owen is a pretty obscure figure, if you’re not part of his social media echo chamber

2A02:C7F:18AE:4900:8817:E768:EF6C:C50F (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

Off-topic kvetching
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Isn't significant that Mr J opposed Jeremy Corbyn, but then became a big supporter? Why isn't that included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.114.211 (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even without his volte face it is worth mentioning he threw his support around someone the Jewish Community widely considered to be an anti-semite. Could someone please action. 92.40.197.225 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Relevance

There is more discussion about Owen's childhood rota of chores (?) than his contributions to UK politics, why is this? 78.150.72.142 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and it would seem that they go into detail about his childhood. Not saying it all has to be there, but that's why it's there. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean as the full content I can find on childhood chore rotas is: the family also worked out a "rota system" for sharing domestic chores. Nor is it really clear to me why the section "Columnist, broadcaster and writer" wouldn't count as a summary of Jones' contributions to UK politics.
Nonetheless, the reason for "why haven't you covered this?" is "because you haven't written about it yet". If you want to find the sources and rework the article to include a bulky section on the full range of analysis of Jones' influence on UK politics then it'd be very valuable to readers. There's no malice, just underdevelopment due to a chronic lack of volunteer labour. — Bilorv (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Bilorv. The wiki only covers upto 2013 and misses out the Corbyn years which many would find bizarre considering Jone's enthusiasm for the project - he wrote a book on it after all! The sources are readily available and no need for the article to be reworked, it would be amiss for there to be no mention. 78.150.72.142 (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I see. Indicative that the last person moved to write in-depth on this article did so in the year 2013, perhaps (apart from the 2019 assault case). I'm sure that sources are readily available. With my thousands-long longlist of tasks to work on, I wouldn't count on me expanding this anytime soon, but hopefully somebody will... I always prioritise tidying up or expanding on good faith additions by newcomers. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT aside, I agree with 78.150.* that the "early life" section was a little flabby and have trimmed it down. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Family

Many are struggling to understand the prelevance of his family within 'Early Life and Education'. Firstly, there is no such thing as a "fourth-generation socialist" and secondly, why does it matter where his parents met? He's a columnist, not a politician.

Joe Roe speaks that it is reported in secondary sources but this is by the by, many things reported in secondary sources do not merit a mention on a subject's wikipedia page, otherwise every page would last forever. 95.87.77.236 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)
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. [4], [5]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

To start off; [[6][I have added his 2020 book and 5 RS secondary sources]]. Maybe 5 is too many? CanterburyUK (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thx @Hob Gadling - my question would have been better phrased as: what details can be removed? CanterburyUK (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)
"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)
@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)
This is a WP:BLP, and the additions are obviously BLP-sensitive, so per WP:BLPREMOVE, affirmative consensus is required to include them. And the issues are still the same as above - you're giving WP:UNDUE weight to handful of opinion pieces (often by people who share the same biases and POV, which makes it worse), without any secondary coverage to establish its importance. If this is as important as you say, it should be easy to find high-quality non-opinion coverage of it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I Watched The Hamas Massacre Film. Here Are My Thoughts., retrieved 2024-01-07

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

Change "He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman and Tribune." [in the introduction] to "He writes a column for The Guardian and contributes to the New Statesman, Tribune, and The National.[1] Avtron (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Webster, Laura. "Owen Jones joins The National as a new regular contributor". The National. Newsquest Media Group Ltd. Retrieved 20 January 2024.

Minor error

"The book received a negative review from British trade unionist Len McCluskey. and was praised by Melissa Benn..."

There's a period after "Len McCluskey" and then the sentence continues. Dornwald (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dornwald:, fixed, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

BLP violation

If there are independent reliable sources that discuss this, that is certainly valid content. 331dot (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
BLP violation removedPlease see the following articles by the Express, this online article and the original video of Owen Jones reacting to the Hamas massacre footage (from his own official YouTube channel).BLP violation removed
There was no need to remove my post from this talk page, when clarification could have been sought, given that it is evidence-backed and a valid point of discussion. There is no BLP violation at hand, except for the arbitrary application of rules here.
Now that sources have been provided, this discussion should continue unhindered. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't arbitrary, you did not provide sources with your original post(a fact I missed) and it was correctly removed. His own YouTube videos are useless here as the issue is what others say about his comments. The second source you provide is just someone writing about their thoughts and views, it isn't a piece of journalism. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You conveniently leave out the first source, which is an established newspaper. Your ignoring of this does seem rather arbitrary. I will be re-posting the original discussion, with the Express newspaper article linked as a source. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
If you continue to post material that violates BLP policy, it will be removed and you may be reported for administrative action. AusLondonder (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
If you refer to the BLP policy of sources required, then rest assured, the sources will be provided. If you have any ongoing issue with this important discussion taking place on the talk page, even when sufficiently referenced, then we can escalate this accordingly. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Daily Express (WP:DAILYEXPRESS) is a generally unreliable source and absolutely unacceptable for contentious claims at a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Very well, other sources have been provided in conjunction. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Express is a generally unreliable source (WP:DAILYEXPRESS). — LittleDwangs (talk) 13:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a reminder that BLP applies to talk pages. Jones has published statements pushing back on your characterisation so you should provide sources discussing this rather than make unsupported allegations. You may also wish to familiarise yourself with previous discussions on the topic here and here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Please see the provided sources. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You should not even be contributing about this topic, you don't have 500 edits. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The community has determined that the Daily Express is not a suitable source. The reliability of Spiked is being discussed as we speak (see the RSN) but early indications are that it is also unsuitable. We cannot make editorial claims about Owen based on his own YouTube video. Btw this discussion relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict. There are restrictions on who can edit within that topic. Burrobert (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You are incorrect in your interpretation of the rules. I am not currently eligible to edit articles about the Israel-Palestine Conflict, but I am nonetheless eligible to raise the topic in Talk pages. This has been discussed before, and the outcome has been repeatedly determined as this.
Let us proceed with the discussion in good-faith, and not clutch at straws to try and ad-hominem invalidate the importance of the points raised. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
You are allowed to make edit requests. I don't see where you've done that here, and you are being disruptive by repeatedly adding your claims(as well as the Express source). 331dot (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I am actively making an edit request, but first wish to gain consensus - please see the new topic. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
An edit request is a formal process by which you propose a specific edit that the community can discuss. See WP:ER. You haven't done that. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Owen Jones and Israel/Palestine conflict

Several sources have reported on controversy around Owen Jones' reaction to Hamas' Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis, where he reportedly posted a YouTube video that cast doubt on claims of Hamas' infanticides and sexual violence against Israeli women. Such sources include an article by Jewish News (a UK-based newspaper which focuses on topics within the Jewish community), The Express (a tabloid, however it adds consensus here) and pro-Israel NGOs such as CAMERA UK and HonestReporting. It is clear from these that controversy has occurred.

Additionally, controversy around Jones' wider discussion of the 2023- Israel-Hamas War can be found via sources such as Sky News on Oct 10th, where British Labour MP Dame Margaret Hodge accused Jones of "ignoring what's happened over the last few days" (regarding Hamas' Oct 7th massacre).

Given this, and especially in light of the news of the United Nations confirming the validity of reports of Hamas sexual violence against Israeli women (see this BBC News article), it may be appropriate to include the controversy of Owen Jones' claims around the Oct 7th massacre and surrounding topics, in the article.

Looking to build consensus. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

How about you firstly try and find a better section heading than that BLP violation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
My heading aims to be neutral about the contentious topic, discussing it as "reports of", while also staying accurate and specific to what is being discussed. Feel free to suggest a better heading. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I have just added a new section on controversies surrounding Owen Jones which includes his reaction to the massacre myself. Feel free to take a look at it; I feel it is worth adding to his page given he is a figure who often attracts controversy with his journalism (whatever your opinion of whether it is warranted), and this has been unrepresented on his wiki page up to now. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
No that's not how consensus works. Your section was utterly unacceptable and in complete violation of BLP policies in so many ways it's frankly embarassing. AusLondonder (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Do elaborate. I have some idea of why you may have reached this conclusion about some aspects of the section (for example I realise, in hindsight, the limitation of using a YouTube video as a source since they are primary sources), but I do not see why you have seen fit to take the entire thing down or label the entire thing a violation of BLP policies when there was relevant information here, with sources including articles written by Jones himself as well as newspapers that are far from being tabloids Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The entire section about the Israel-Palestine conflict was improperly sourced, as I said on your talk page synthesis of a primary source is not acceptable at all. The only other source was an opinion piece. Do you really think that is sufficient sourcing for highly controversial claims at a BLP? The Venezuela section was also highly inappropriate. It was again synthesis of his own articles and the addition of a page from Human Rights Watch that didn't mention Jones. I am surprised other editors didn't immediately revert you. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, do you believe this wikipedia section violates BLP policy too? Éric Zemmour#Controversies and conflicts with opponents Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I accept the criticism re: HumansRightsWatch (this was to place the controversy over his Venezuela comments in a wider context but point taken), but I fail to see how the fact I put up an opinion article written by Jones and then included negative reaction to his opinion in the City A.M. is different to many other sections of BLPs that have long stayed up. Perhaps everybody is just violating policy. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see what the Éric Zemmour article has to do with this article and I haven't reviewed the content or sources there. Have you read WP:SYNTH? Also relevant is WP:BLPREMOVE: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that...
is unsourced or poorly sourced;
is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources" AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I have read those pages. I fail to see how my inclusion of the article written by Owen himself with a description of what it said, and then another article written by the A.M. with a description of what the article there states, could be taken as me 'combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.' I had described both articles (which were both related to) and what the author of said articles concluded each in turn; I did not synthesise the two to produce a novel conclusion.
I mean this in no disrespectful way, but it is beginning to appear to me as though your instinct is to say 'this is poorly sourced/violates BLP policy in its entirety' when you see something added to a page which is not to your fancy or is partially (but not wholly) a deviation from BLP protocol. I have just seen that you also undid my edit to Diane Abbot today, despite the fact this literally included a BBC News report as a source. Fortunately other editors picked up on this and have since reinstated it to that page. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Clearly there is some consensus here, re: Anonymous Observer1945. Their edits were well sourced and balanced.
You cannot just emptily assert BLP violations and remove edits that go against the grain of your political agenda (such as your targeting of this user's Diane Abbot page contributions as well).
The controversy around Owen Jones' Israel-Hamas War statements is clear and well sourced. If you continue to induce your own seeming political bias onto this article, then it may need to be escalated. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Fully agree @Neutral Editor 645. Anonymous Observer1945 (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do escalate Neutral Editor 645. You're an account with 153 edits and an obsession with Jones and the Israel/Palestine conflict. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict you should not be making edits in this area. Also per the general sanctions: "Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or any other applicable policy; Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely" AusLondonder (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a very interesting and creative interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. Please note that this restriction applies to edits of the articles themselves, not Talk pages. Good-faith participation in Talk pages is allowed, and my contributions span numerous topics that I hold knowledge on.
Your ad-hominem attack against me does nothing to negate your clear agenda, when it comes to blocking the valid contributions by @Anonymous Observer1945. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of primary sources and other unhelpful edits

@Pennine rambler Please refrain from inserting contentious material to a BLP article (especially regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict) that is sourced only to primary sources (see these edits [7] [8] [9]). I think you also need to provide an explanation as to why you labelled Jones as a "hamasexual" in this edit [10]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I would welcome an admin to check the IP on the suspect edits. Pennine rambler (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pennine rambler Are you saying you did not make these edits and your account has been compromised? Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
There clearly are sufficient sources for Israel/Palestine conflict related edits however, along with a growing consensus here that it is necessary and important to include. I am unable to edit, as I am not yet past the 500 edits. Other contributors who have tried, in good faith, have had their edits maliciously reverted.
It is important that a well-sourced and balanced edit is made, about this contentious topic. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Sadly the article had a lot of reliance on primary sources, including ADHT, there being no other, even his full DOB is not verified independently, his campaign to highlight the humanitarian issues in Gaza is something he feels strongly about, but if nothing of his humanitarian campaigns can be included so be it. Maybe add when its all over?
  • Comment We're seeing an influx of edits from relatively new accounts and accounts with few edits on this page. Unfortunately these editors don't seem to understand primary sourcing and why it's unacceptable at a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP Self Published

Have edited to improve article and avoid breaches of the self published works rules, found alternative sources, but could not verify Cale Green, except if using subjects own published material so removed that and hope someone else can find a way to verify that. Edits were with this in mind Template:BLP_self-published --Pennine rambler (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the source is not, strictly speaking, self-published. This is a WP:PRIMARY source, but not a WP:SPS. It is published by the Independent and authored by Jones. The Independent retains editorial oversight and responsibility for fact-checking, so such a source is presumed to be more reliable than a blog of social media post would be.
But even blogs and similar can be used for non-controversial details, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Basic biographical details, such as place of birth and schools attended, are non-controversial and can be supported with primary sources. Lacking better sources, it can even be acceptable to cite social media posts for these kinds of details, even though such sources would normally rarely be usable.
If there is ANY reason to think this information is contested or undue, then such sources should not be used (WP:DOB for example). I don't think there is any such reason here, though. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I would welcome seeing examples of other articles that are of good standard and comply or support your assertion without violating Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources. If social media can be used on this article and his own articles even though he is the author, this will open the gates to allow the article to be greatly expanded. --Pennine rambler (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSEDITORIAL states that opinion pieces, such as those used in this article, may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy. Other than that caveat, I mostly agree with Grayfell. I am more concerned about @Pennine rambler continuing to edit this article without explaining their "hamasexual" [11] edit. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
No idea, I had already replied to you on this, end of subject, it was I who removed that 8 minutes after it first appeared - here end of. To the article
and
There is nothing that is relevant in the actual article effected by removal of self published citations. Pennine rambler (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
What are you talking about?
It "first appeared" because you added the term offensive with this edit. The edit summary did not indicate this was a revert. You are responsible for your edits, and blaming an unspecified IP is not helpful. Where did this come from if not you? Please explain this. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I have - end of. Pennine rambler (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
No, you haven't. Why did you add this offensive term? Grayfell (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Some odd images

Some rather unflattering images of Jones have been appearing in his bio. Firstly, one in which he appears to be in pain. And now one in which he looks like a Laughing Clown at a carnival. It's amusing but not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Burrobert (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH - Kier Starmer

@Pennine rambler Your edits [12] [ [13] here introduce a source which does not mention Owen Jones. This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH. A clarification on Starmer's comments are given in the original BBC article that sources this sentence and a summary of this should be used instead (if needed). As the I/P topic is under the 1RR rule I cannot make this change now but I suggest you do. This may seem trivial but this is a BLP. Your previous unexplained edits (see "Use of primary sources and other unhelpful edits section" above) have still not been fully explained and you have suggested that your account has been compromised and used by someone else. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Owen_Jones/Archive_1&oldid=1248123289"