Talk:Jonathan Jones (journalist)

Untitled
Material 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
Jones 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 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)
 * 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
I'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
The problem with the section "on photography", and why it was originally removed in January 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
what qualifies as the most dimwitted assessment of Cézanne I've ever seen in print: . 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)