Talk:Jon Snow (journalist)

Married

John Snow got married recently. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/7856427/Jon-Snow-married-in-Mustique.html Please update accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.45.224 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Snow relationship

This article says that Jon Snow is the "newphew (sic) of Peter Snow". The Peter Snow article says that they are brothers. Neither seems likely, as (according to his autobiography, serialised in the Grauniad[1]) Jon's parents didn't meet until 1940, two years after Peter was born; but Jon's father was 40 by then, making Jon's father and Peter of very different generations. It seems more likely, as reported by Media Guardian, that they are cousins. Any objects to me changing the articles accordingly? --rbrwr^± 20:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. I've heard every combination (even father-and-son before), on NSC (a Brighton and Hove Albion F.C. forum). Cousins seems the most likely anyway.

Extract 2 from Jon's autobiography refers to Peter as his cousin, so I'm pretty sure that settles it. --rbrwr^±

Jon Snow's turned down a British medal

Jon Snow famously turned down a British medal a number of years ago now. Further details wold be a nice addition.

Jon Snow is definitely the COUSIN of Peter Snow

Jon Snow sparked controversy and speculation of an anti-Israel agenda

The reasons I've removed this paragraph are:

1. I follow the news pretty closely in the UK where Jon Snow works, and have not noticed any controversy about Jon Snow lately.
2. If you search Google News with the expressions '"Jon Snow" diplomat', '"Jon Snow" controversy', '"Jon Snow" Israel' only one news story world-wide, the one cited, refers to this so-called "controversy" - if it was a real notable "controversy" you would expect it to have stirred up multiple independent stories worldwide, rather than just one in Israel. (The opinion article [2] seems obliquely critical of Jon Snow in a single paragraph, but not related to the "Rockets, pretty pathetic things - nobody gets injured" question.)
3. In the cited article, Jon Snow is only mentioned in the 6th of 14 paragraphs, small beer in the total article - hardly the stuff of a notable "controversy".
4. The cited article does not actually assert this is a "controversy", so this assertion appears unsourced.
5. Julie Burchill, who wrote the cited article, is not reknowned as a heavyweight journalist, more on the gossipy side ("She is also completing a sequel to Sugar Rush, her lesbian teen novel" [3]); and she has the tendancy to see anti-Semitism rather more readily than most journalists (quote: "The Guardian, the newspaper I left some years ago in protest at what I saw as its vile anti-Semitism" [4]).

From all this I conclude this is not a notable controversy about Jon Snow, certainly in the UK, and so it should not be in the article. To sustain it's position in the article as a notable controvesy (Wikipedia:Verifiability) it should be easy to find at least 3 independent news stories raising it as a controversy. Also note the higher standard of Verifiability required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately ... without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule". Rwendland 23:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You have made a very solid argument, and the material should not be reinstated until and unless anyone answers the points and it is agreed on the talk page. Tyrenius 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't think why i hadn't thought to express this before now, but i agree entirely withTyrenius. -W guice 01:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

three reverts

I've reached my three-revert limit on this bullshit "Israel controversy" insertion. The 5 very strong points made above have not been even remotely satisfactorily answered by the only editor who wants the addition left in. I wonder what everyone else thinks on this matter. -- W guice 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If it's inserted again by the same editor, I will ask for him to be blocked. Tyrenius 21:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The 3-revert rule does not apply to this sort of libellous nonsense in any case!Phase4 21:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Jon Snow Israel/Gaza/Lebanon controversy

Where is the evidence that Jon Snow 'angered a lot of people?'

Well Jon Snow himself appears to acknowledge that to be the case.

See More4 website.

The actual paragraph: In August, 2006 Jon Snow was accused of an anti-Israel agenda by some supporters of Israel when he described rockets which killed Israeli civilians in the town of Sderot as "Rockets, pretty pathetic things - nobody gets injured." Julie Burchill writing in the left-leaning Haaretz accused Snow of anti-Semitism. Channel4 and Snow have not responded to the criticisms. Muslim organisation MPAC praised the interview in question.

- All of this was sourced. There is nothing in this that anybody seems to have disputed...

• Comment. Just want to dispute the idea that Haaretz is left-leaning. It's left-leaning in a Zionist context, which is a bit like being left-leaning in the context of the National Socialist German Workers Party. -W guice 16:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. re: It's generally accepted as being left-leaning but I think that's something you should look at on the Haaretz page. The Nazi analogy anyhow is pretty offensive as well as false. Disillusioned-

• Uhmmm, if you hadn't quite grasped why i wikilinked Haaretz, it's because the page supports what i said about it being left-leaning within a Zionist context, which does not qualify to be described as "left-leaning" solely and without that corollary. The analogy stands as a direct comparison of a why a left-leaning perspective within a rightist system does not merit the title of an objective left-leaning perspective. i'm sorry if that offends you -W guice 16:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Jon Snow and Channel 4 have been frequently accused of having an anti-Israel bias by various pro-Israel groups, including HonestReporting. Although among others Channel 4 News and its coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is well respected.

 Again - this is all true and I have not seen anybody removing this paragraph challenge this...

I await somebody to refute the sourced facts from these facts otherwise I don't see any reason why this paragraph should not be reinstated. Disillusioned- 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

These are not facts: they are accusations and are potentially libellous. I am therefore removing the section from Snow's biography.Phase4 13:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How are they libellous?

What aspect of these comments are libellous? Can you not see that they are sourced and even acknowledged by Jon Snow himself? Bizarre. Disillusioned- 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you under the illusion that they are not potentially libellous?Phase4 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot see anything libellous about it...perhaps you can point out exactly what is potentially libellous. User:Disillusioned-

• one key point is the fact that the accusation of "anti-Semitism", which a lot of people would consider a pretty libellous thing to be accused of, is currently unsourced, except for a little bit of a "Julie Burchill sez" context in the next-door sentence. -W guice 16:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• And:

1. "Some supporters of Israel" ≠ Julie "noted for her confrontational and iconoclastic views, which have been criticised as contradictory" Burchill. Julie Burchill is one supporter of Israel, and hardly one prone to impartiality at that. Extrapolating "some supporters" from that looks like weasel words to me.
   
2. "[H]e described rockets which killed Israeli civilians in the town of Sderot as "Rockets, pretty pathetic things - nobody gets injured."" Being familiar with the footage in question, i'd actually like to dispute that he did describe them thus. He actually only made this suggestion as part of a technique you may have heard of called devil's advocate, a common form of which involves one participant in a discussion advancing an extreme version of an idea for the purposes of generating discussion. Jon Snow is a journalist, a profession which involves engaging with all sorts of ideas and angles for public edification, of which none are necessarily representative of the view of any person expressing them. It's a generalised statement of rhetorical technique; representing it as a statement of belief is disingenuous POV-pushing.
   
3. At no point does the quote "Rockets, pretty pathetic things - nobody gets injured" refer directly to any specific ones targeted at Sderot, so that particular claim itself is a direct and - yes! - potentially libellous misrepresentation.
   
4. "Jon Snow and Channel 4 have been frequently accused of having an anti-Israel bias by various pro-Israel groups, including HonestReporting". Oh really, where? This must be one of those "unsourced" bits you were inquiring about the location of before. Plus, the sentence blatantly negates its own relevance! "Accused of having an anti-Israel bias by pro-Israel groups"? No, never! Pro-Israel groups do what?? Anyway, facetiousness aside, impartial truth is not exactly part of Honest "the largest Israel media advocacy group in the world" Reporting's remit.
5. Text of the More4 reference:

“ having interviewed both the Israelis and Hamas on Channel 4 News over the Gaza crisis, my inbox transformed into a Middle East war zone.

The headers ranged from 'thank-you' to 'shameful', from 'arsehole' to 'anti-semite' and from 'criminal' to 'Christain'. Many of the most abusive actually included their whole postal addresses. They ranged from California to Cairo, from Java to Gateshead from Manchester to Morrocco.

Many were formulaic, using similar phrase construction. But more were specifically abusive suggesting my mother should rot in hell among other things.

Naturally, I responded...

”

This passage can be used to support the claim that "Jon Snow gratified a lot of people" as easily as "Jon Snow angered a lot of people". It's all about how you (mis)represent the material. Furthermore, this paragraph is specifically contextualised by the words "having interviewed both the Israelis and Hamas on Channel 4 News over the Gaza crisis, my inbox transformed into a Middle East war zone". Not "my interview with the Israeli minister pissed a lot of people off", but "having interviewed both the Israelis and Hamas...". Boiling this down to effectively the former (though i'm obviously paraphrasing) would be a case of deliberate misrepresentation by omission.

Add these to the five unanswered above. -W guice 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine non-broadcast interview

In the "Journalist" section there is a paragraph about a mistaken interview with Patrick Haseldine that was never broadcast, as the mistake was realised before broadcast. Anyone know why this is notable enough to mention in the article? Rwendland 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed now. Rwendland 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've dug up this removed paragraph which, upon reflection, seems notable enough to be reinserted into the article. Reinserted now.Phase4 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Early life - incident at Scarborough

In the section about the student protest at the University of Liverpool, there was mention of throwing paint over the statue of Queen Victoria in Scarborough. It was unsourced, and I can't find any mention of this on Google (other than word-for-word copies of the same sentence on other sites - who copied who?) so I've removed it. And I've sourced the student protest itself from the university's own alumni pages. (iainjones1980 - forgot to log in beforehand as usual) 91.109.3.133 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Jon Snow says his page is wrong

On Channel 4 this evening, when interviewing Jimmy Wales, Jon Snow said this article is wrong, e.g. his liking of trees. Please could someone kindly fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.50 (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Did he say he hates trees? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No, just conifers; Snow is a patron of Trees for Cities.[5] Ironically it seems it was a tree-loving editor that mistakenly remove the Citation needed template from the incorrect "conifer collector" claim.[6] Rwendland (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that's the most wonderfully surreal wiki discussion I've ever come across. "Does he hate trees?", "No, just conifers." Whether that's true or otherwise is beside the point; thank you for brightening my day! 141.0.46.202 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

This page is not about the Game of Thrones character

One or more anonymous editors are repeatedly adding references in the Occupation section of the Infobox to the fictional Game of Thrones character Jon Snow. This character bears no relation to the journalist Jon Snow, apart from sharing his name. Any information about the Game of Thrones character should go on his page.Cimbalom (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cimbalom, like I stated at that character's talk page, I think what you are facing is WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jon Snow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101126115720/http://www.nus.org.uk:80/en/Student-Life/Student-Lifestyle/Jon-Snow-Exclusive-Interview/ to http://www.nus.org.uk/en/student-life/student-lifestyle/Jon-Snow-Exclusive-Interview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jon Snow (character) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (journalist). 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/20111024170814/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19981213/ai_n14482319/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19981213/ai_n14482319

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (journalist). 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/20110308093144/http://www.healthtalkonline.org/Overview/ThePeople to http://www.healthtalkonline.org/Overview/ThePeople

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jon Snow (journalist). 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/20160312040721/http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/20688/Jonathan-George-(Jon)-SNOW to http://www.debretts.com/people-of-today/profile/20688/Jonathan-George-(Jon)-SNOW

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Jon Snow's new babby

I've noticed that some information regarding the new baby has been deleted, could this be explained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofGlamorgan (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

LordofGlamorgan, if you mean my edit, then the central information (month of birth and parents) is still present in the article. I also left in that the baby was born by surrogacy, but not the further details which I thought were an unnecessary invasion of the article subject's privacy. I saw no reason to include the full date of birth of a non-notable child. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

anti-aparteid socialist student protests

Can 'socialist' be substantiated in this instance. It is not referenced in the sources. Many socialists campaigned against aparteid. But so too did others. Can this particular protest be considered socialist? JDE 92.10.175.225 (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)