Talk:Kevan Jones

alleged involvement in attempt to smear Gen. Richard Dannat

I was surprised, to say the least, to have a look at this article after reading yet another story about Kevan Jones' alleged involvement in this scandal only to find absolutely no reference whatsoever to it on this page - after all it's not like Wikipedia users to miss a chance to update an otherwise minor article when the subject matter gets coverage in the mainstream media - however a quick look at the edit history revealed these and edits - made it clear to me why this info was missing. Now this is going to stretch my ability to 'assume good faith' to its absolute limit but i will assume that User:Off2riorob and User:Martin451 actually had some valid reason for deleting a referenced passage detailing a controversy which has seen ample coverage in the major mainstream media and which sees our subject matter at its very heart. Whatever your reasons, and honestly i cannot imagine any good ones, i have reinserted the passage dealing with the controversy, correctly formated the hyperlink references and even added a few more for fun. siarach (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted a 'controversies' section detailing his well publicised apologies to Richard Dannatt and Joanna Lumley. Both are fully referenced but had been deleted by User:Off2riorob who was subsequently banned for abuse and being a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.50.25.180 (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Joanna Lumley "irritating" Row

The sentence on this claimed Jones' statement was about Lumley's Gurkha campaign itself, but the source clearly states that it was in fact about her actions once the campaign was successful. I've edited the page to reflect this; it was clearly misleading before. I'm also concerned about the section naming his LD opponent for the forthcoming election, "amongst other candidates". I've left it for now, because the LDs were the second party in his constituency in 2005, but I suspect it really needs to list the other candidates by name, or else be deleted. EJBH (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 comments on asylum

I can understand the logic behind including his comment on "lunatic asylums" for those opposing programme motions as "relevant context" and would certainly find interesting if I was writing an original attack article on Jones or a defence of Livingstone, but it seems a bit WP:SYNTHy to suggest it's a notable comment on mental health when despite all the discussions over mental health surrounding Kevan Jones. the only reliable secondary source to mention it at all was a throwaway line in the NS. It's not really Wikipedia's job to dredge up awkward comments and place them in awkward contexts. (Perhaps I'm being particularly pedantic on this point because this article had one of the highest ratios of muckracking to biographical details of any of the hundreds of political bios I've read) Thoughts? Dtellett (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I had removed it earlier but it was reverted Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly relevant that Jones made comments along remarkably similar lines to what he was expressing outrage at having been said to him. That's why I originally added it (someone else reinstated it apparently on grounds of relevance). And in terms of reliability it's in the official record that he said it.

But in terms of opinion I do agree there's an issue of due weight. Though the New Statesman line was by 'one of the most high-profile left-wing figures in Fleet Street'[1] who is regularly on TV reviewing the papers. There's also this piece[2] by the editorial team of (albeit) a blog, which puts it in some excellent wider context (including that Wikipedia's own Jimbo Wales has also indulged in such slurs!). Perhaps it should just say that some commentators noted previous comments by Jones himself, perhaps moved to the end of the 2015 stuff. Eversync (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the difference there is between saying "anyone who opposes this is a lunatic" and "you oppose this, therefore you are a lunatic". Perhaps a subtle point, but making the comment about a specific person was what made the Livingstone comment much worse. I'm not disputing that he said it, but whether it is relevant is another question. Unfortunately as a blog it is not an RS, and I don't think we can put in there "some commentators noted..." while referring to a blog. If you can find another source then feel to put it in though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes Livingstone's comments were more individually personal (after Jones had publicly implied he was ignorant about defence), but Jones's were specifically about members of his own opposition benches who might vote in a way he disagreed with (as far as I could work out) - and he conflated mental illness with idiocy ('would be an idiot'), and political views with forced psychiatric hospitalisation ('taken out to'), which is more serious than whether to see GP. But yeah getting offtopic now. Eversync (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevant point here is not whether Kevan Jones was wrong to make those comments (or for that matter Ken) but whether it represented a significant event in his career worthy of recording in a Wikipeda biography. A single, passing mention in a WP:Reliable source out of dozens of articles on Kevan Jones and mental health issues suggests otherwise. CF Livingstone and Jones' spat which was front page news. Dtellett (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is not the significance of it as an event in his career in 2010, but the context it adds to his attacks on Livingstone's 2015 comments. The associate editor of the Mirror and weekly TV news commentator viewed that context as significant enough to comment on. Eversync (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevan Jones. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331231018/http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77428463-6C55-46F2-AEE4-522FB73D1B98/0/mod_arac0809_vol2.pdf to http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/77428463-6C55-46F2-AEE4-522FB73D1B98/0/mod_arac0809_vol2.pdf

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) 21:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)