Cannabis Indica

Content deleted Content added
Hob Gadling (talk | contribs)
Tag: Reply
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 54: Line 54:
:::Which Wiki policy are you referring to? [[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk:CanterburyUK|talk]]) 09:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Which Wiki policy are you referring to? [[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 12:08, 9 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. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 12:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thx @[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] - my question would have been better phrased as: what details can be removed? [[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk:CanterburyUK|talk]]) 09:23, 8 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. [[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk:CanterburyUK|talk]]) 09:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:Vladimir.copic|Vladimir.copic]]
::I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owen_Jones&oldid=1194618576 now put back] a section heading titled: ''''Response to his video about the 'Hamas Massacre film''''; which in 1194512520 [[User:Vladimir.copic|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 [[User:Vladimir.copic|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
::* ex-Guardian journalist [[Hadley Freeman]]'s article
::* Journalist [[Rachel Johnson]]'s article in [[The Evening Standard]]
::* [[Andrew Neil]], former editor of [[The Sunday Times]] article
::* BBC report on the video testimony of eye-witness statements of sexual violence
::* [[The Guardian]] newspaper article of a UN meeting
::* and their quotes from [[The New York Times]]
::[[User:CanterburyUK|CanterburyUK]] ([[User talk:CanterburyUK|talk]]) 22:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:41, 9 January 2024

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]

Leave a Reply