Talk:Jason Jones (activist/filmmaker)

edit war over title and content

You guys need to be aware of the WP:BRD cycle. Clearly there is disagreement over this article, so instead of edit warring please discuss the problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, you need to back up your claims rather than just undoing a lot of content additions and proper formatting. The information I have provided is cited and I have not removed any information that was previously on the page. You are just undoing my changes, with one word justifications. If you have a connection with this subject or are the subject himself, you need to remove yourself from editing this page. User:VeritasRanch (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Beeblebrox, your comments on the last edit demonstrate that your information is out of date. Several articles link to this article, so it is no longer orphaned. User:VeritasRanch (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox, I'm aware of BRD and have been posting to User talk:VeritasRanch, guess it would be better here. Thanks for posting to WP:BLPN, I had asked Jclemens for advice earlier. Here is one of my previous comments at User talk:VeritasRanch, reposted here for clarity and continuity:

*Hello VeritasRanch. It looks like you agree that Jason Jones (pro-life activist) and Jason Jones (Humanitarian Filmmaker) are the same person, since you've reverted the merge and replaced it with a redirect. Your redirect is not appropriate for two reasons. First, it does not keep the content available from the redirected page, while a merge does. Second, the page you redirected, Jason Jones (pro-life activist) has been around since 2006 with multiple editors, while your target page, Jason Jones (Humanitarian Filmmaker) is two hours old, with you as the only significant contributor. Unless you are pushing a particular point of view about the article's subject, updating the existing article with your new contributions is the appropriate next step, which is what we're doing with a merge. There's no fault in not realizing there was an existing article about this person, we all miss things. Best regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I said at WP:BLPN, my intent was to merge the content of the newer article into the older one. I object to deleting the content of either the old or new article. And I don't have a position on what title is used for the merged result, I simply used the title that had existed since 2006. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Proposal: I suggest that User:Beeblebrox or assignee make a full merge of both original articles, to a new title of their selection and with a new lead. See WP:BLPN for title suggestions. Arbiter of content could be a recent press-kit bio of the subject like this one or similar, or an official one if it exists. Comments? Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 13:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuckiesdad, I would like to volunteer to construct the new article. Do I just create a new article with a new lead? Given the scope/experience of his work, I believe that humanitarian filmmaker better captures his career of the past several years. If you can give me until the end of the day today, I will post a reply to this thread with the link to the new article - if we like it, we can redirect this one to that one? Is this okay with you, Chuckiesdad? VeritasRanch (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• What a Wikipedia article should do is tell the reader everything of significance, not just the last few years. Let's be honest about what you have been doing, which is undoing the merger and leaving behind only the material about his filmmaking work and trip to Africa. That is not acceptable. Also, the repeated removal of the {{orphan}} tag is not acceptable, as the article not linked to any other articles[1]. As for the title, I don't particularly like either of them, as he is clearly known for more than one thing. So, please do re-write the article if you feel so compelled, but do not deliberately exclude all but the most recent information, and let's see if we can come up with a new title for the article that we can agree on. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, not trying to whitewash here. I have only added content about the most recent several years, because that is all I was aware of and had content for. As for the merger, I got tripped up in the logistics and did not intend to delete old content. On the title, this is my point as well - since he is clearly known for more than one thing. I thought Humanitarian Filmmaker really summed it up well - it covers his filmography, while also highlighting his social activism. Could you agree to that title? VeritasRanch (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the orphan matter, I found at least two articles that link to this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Hawaii_alumni In light of this information, I propose removing the orphan tag. Do you agree? VeritasRanch (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• The tag says "few or no other articles." We've got one article and a category, that's pretty few. He should probably be linked in with at least Sam Brownback and Human Life International, as he is/was associated with them, but I guess that kind of goes to the core of what we are discussing here. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I accept your point on the orphan status. How many inbound links does this article need to qualify for removal as an orphan? Also, in the spirit of community, do you agree to the new title? As stated above, I think the new title better reflects the whole of the subject's career. VeritasRanch (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's not really a hard and fast rule about the orphan thing, but I think generally 3 or 4 is enough. I don't think, however, that "Humanitarian filmmaker" is exactly a neutral title, what about "activist/filmmaker" ? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken on the NPOV matter. "Activist/Filmmaker" works for me, and I think it summarizes the subject in a complete and NPOV way. Can you make that change to the title? Also, I added inbound article links to the Human Life International and Sam Brownback articles, including the Bella page that brings the total up to 3 with a prominent category tag as well. Let me know if you think that is good, with regard to the orphan tag.VeritasRanch (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Done and done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• And I'm satisfied. Thanks, folks. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, great work all around. VeritasRanch (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Worker

I removed the phrase "human rights worker" as it is not supported by any reliable sources. It (along with other policy based changes) was reverted with no explanation other than instruction to discuss here. So please, explain which reliable sources use "human rights worker" as a description for Jason Jones, and how "which promotes the incomparable dignity and beauty of the human person through the power of film" is possibly acceptable neutral phrasing, especially without a source. Per my understanding of BLP policy, challenged material should remain removed until consensus exists to include it, not the other way around, so I will reinstate the removal for the time being. NonReproBlue (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

Have tagged for neutrality as editor has removed this twice:

In 2017, Jones was invited to give a speech at St Ignatius College Prep in Chicago, Illinois where he asked all the young high school girls to stand up in front of their 1600+ student body and promise him to never get an abortion.

Editor has also changed anti-abortion to pro-life. Tacyarg (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References