Talk:Jonathan Jones (journalist)
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
editMaterial moved from main page
Jonathan Jones wrote a piece for The Guardian on January 5th 2006 called Rocks of Ages on the artist Richard Long which he wrote after seeing an exhibition of Richard Long's in London, then walking in the hills just behind Prestatyn in North Wales. He writes, or meditates of walking in that timeless landscape and how Richard Long also walks in remote parts of the world. Viperoz 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Viperoz. Moved by Jonathan A Jones 21:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
...and Wikipedia
editJones wrote another piece on WP art coverage, several years ago, where he was less hostile than today's but said (in effect) we should stop trying to be an encyclopedia and write blog-style entries with our personal views. It's amazing how many wrong ends some sticks have. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, here are the master's various thoughts [1] Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need the wikipedia section all. He has written many articles some of which have no doubt had much greater impact than this one. WP:WEIGHT and WP:SELF probably apply.
- Previous posts on wikipedia include Why the Wikipedia blackout is good news for art lovers 18 January 2012, where he really puts the boot in.--Salix alba (talk): 16:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- We certainly seem to be a hot topic. As he explains, every time he searches for anything, Wikipedia comes up first. Before his own work? It would be amusing if the article were expanded so that it came higher on Google than his own Guardian page. Unfortunately, I don't see very much else to say about him. His column certainly seems to be running out of steam with stale pieces about why the Turner Prize is boring, how great sink holes are, why Tracy Emin has sold out etc. Should he be proposed for deletion on the grounds of obsolescence? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Simon Knight's blog response to the article: http://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikipedia-is-a-corrupting-force-eroding-the-worlds-intellect-a-reply/ Philafrenzy (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- We certainly seem to be a hot topic. As he explains, every time he searches for anything, Wikipedia comes up first. Before his own work? It would be amusing if the article were expanded so that it came higher on Google than his own Guardian page. Unfortunately, I don't see very much else to say about him. His column certainly seems to be running out of steam with stale pieces about why the Turner Prize is boring, how great sink holes are, why Tracy Emin has sold out etc. Should he be proposed for deletion on the grounds of obsolescence? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Previous posts on wikipedia include Why the Wikipedia blackout is good news for art lovers 18 January 2012, where he really puts the boot in.--Salix alba (talk): 16:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we need the wikipedia section all. He has written many articles some of which have no doubt had much greater impact than this one. WP:WEIGHT and WP:SELF probably apply.
- Given that the Guardian consistently seems to misrepresent Wikipedia would it be fun to offer Jones and (perhaps a less critical) Guardian journalist (Charles Arthur?) to a high-profile edit-a-thon or other art/GLAM event? Make him put his money where his mouth is? PatHadley (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Recent changes
editI've removed and altered a bunch of material, largely due to WP:BLP. There was a considerable amount of unsourced or poorly sourced information about the subject here, much of it negative. I've also removed some apparently unnecessary quotes and paraphrased others, and tried to give a better sense of the point of the sources given. Honestly, I'm not seeing the need for the sections on Wikipedia, photography, and Terry Pratchett, at least not until better sources are included. The Wikipedia section especially comes off as navel gazing, and many of the quotes seemed randomly selected.
At any rate, please do not add poorly sourced material back into the article, as has been done several times now; stuff like the lengthy discussions of comments sections are potentially serious BLP problems.--Cúchullain t/c 02:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
On photograhy
editThe problem with the section "on photography", and why it was originally removed in January [2] is that the sources are entirely articles by Jones: there's no evidence that these comments have had any influence or even been noticed by anyone else. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
He's just written
editwhat qualifies as the most dimwitted assessment of Cézanne I've ever seen in print: <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/sep/30/cezanne-artists-artist-picasso-admired-tate-modern>. This self-aggrandizing pretentious dolt does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. Kindly delete this page. 2001:7E8:C644:A901:B1CE:E6A1:992A:AC37 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- He thinks very highly of us too. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)