Talk:Owen Jones

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)

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 [1] [2] [3]). I think you also need to provide an explanation as to why you labelled Jones as a "hamasexual" in this edit [4]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)