Talk:John Barnard Jenkins

Republicanism

I removed the Category:Welsh republicans because I can see no evidence to support this fact. -- TrottieTrue (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

Much of the article appears to essentially be written from Jenkins' point of view, and it edges on hagiography, imo. Are there other sources that can be used? I can accept that the main biographical sources are likely to be sympathetic, but there must be more neutral accounts in (English) newspapers available.

Knowing nothing of the topic, I assumed from the beginning of the lead that he was a Welsh politician from some Plaid Cymru splinter group. Should a capsule in the lead be given as Welsh terrorist or Welsh bomber or similar? I note that the latter formulation is used by the BBC.[1] Espresso Addict (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The main source used is Wyn Thomas' biography of Jenkins which I feel does a good job of remaining neutral in its portrait of him as a person. This is what I've tried to replicate here, explaining the facts of the events, intertwined with some of Jenkins' viewpoints on the reasons behind his actions. The fact is, MAC was a remarkably secret organisation and as such, there are few viewpoints available other than those who were directly involved. Any potentially controversial facts, such as the bombing impacts and locations are generally backed up by independent sources, such as newspaper reports and other publications. I also ensured that I collected all available major publications on the subject, which are listed in the bibliography section, to reinforce any information.

I avoided using a term such as terrorist as it seems more like forcing a viewpoint. For example, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi largely regarded as the "Lockerbie bomber" never uses such a term in the lead, and Khalid al-Mihdhar (an FA) uses hijacker rather than terrorist. The lead also uses the term bomb in some fashion at least three times, but bomber is a rather crude label and Bomber (disambiguation) doesn't even mention it in this fashion. I've added a further sentence after the opening now to bring the bombing campaign to the fore more, so to speak. If anything, I would say that apart from the rather attention-grabbing headline, the BBC article is along the same lines as this page and uses many of the same descriptive terms. Kosack (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Kosack, but I'm still worried about the emphasis of the lead. I strongly feel that the first sentence of every lead should contain a capsule that says plainly what the subject is notable for. In this case, leading a bombing campaign. What exactly was he convicted of? The article doesn't appear to state this directly. One formulation would be "John Barnard Jenkins (11 March 1933 – 17 December 2020) was a Welsh nationalist who was convicted of [offence]. He led the Welsh nationalist group, Mudiad Amddiffyn Cymru from 1964 until his arrest in 1969. During his tenure, the organisation embarked on a campaign against the British government and bombed numerous sites in and around Wales." Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject and I can see where you are coming from Espresso Addict. This is a tricky scenario as one does not want to bias a lead in either direction but given the controversial nature of this individual, and I imagine any citations used have some sort of bias to some degree. I agree that his conviction should be specified as that in itself is just a fact without bias towards either side. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This review in Nation.Cymru states "The historian and expert on terrorism Professor Richard English suggests that Dr Thomas’ “somewhat sympathetic tone and approach will upset some people” and getting too close to one’s subject is always a danger for a biographer working on the life of someone who is still alive." [2] Espresso Addict (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

An issue with his conviction, is that he was charged with 19 offences ranging from trespassing and breaking and entering to the actual explosives themselves. There's no sort of headline charge if you will. Perhaps, after the opening sentence, "In 1970, he was convicted of numerous offences related to a bombing campaign he conducted during his tenure with the organisation against the British government and was sentenced to 10 years in prison"?

(Wrote the above before I saw you'd already made changes).

I would say sympathetic is a little overboard on the book, he actively questions Jenkins' motives on several occasions and provides plenty of different viewpoints, the Owain Williams contradiction of his arrest being a prime example. The Welsh nationalist movements are Thomas' life work, there is no-one more qualified to review Jenkins than him really. As I said before though, anything potentially controversial is backed up by at least one other source, sometimes more. What parts do you think are an issue? Kosack (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kosack: I think the charges should all be summarised in the body (though only the key ones in the lead); also the fact that multiple concurrent sentences were given merits a mention.

By no means an expert in this topic area, but I feel the major problems are:

• considerable over-detail leading not only to bloating, but also to a sense of glorifying the subject by appearing to promote his non-mainstream views;
• a relative lack of mainstream perspectives;
• overdependence on sources written by a single historian and published by a niche press -- I'd be less worried about it, if the books had been published by, say, Oxford University Press; the press releases for the biography I've seen feel extremely biased;
• lack of clarity, in the lead especially, about what MAC is; several sources call it a paramilitary organisation;
• use of the military infobox and the original lead focus led to genuine confusion over where the subject's notability lies;
• a lack of perspective on how the subject fits into Welsh history and the Welsh nationalism/independence movement.

With regard to the current GA nomination, I'd suggest moving it out of military history and into world history, and perhaps pinging some of the people involved in reviewing the Provisional Irish Republican Army, currently up for GA. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've pulled the nomination. I don't really agree with a lot of what you're claiming above and any nomination is going to be sunk before it begins now really. With the Christmas period coming up, I won't have enough time to deal with the likely outcome. Kosack (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)