Talk:Jolyon Maugham

Windmill owner

Given Jolyon Maugham is a prominent windmill owner should this information not be on his page?79.77.229.140 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not what he is notable for and, in light of recent death threats against him, the article probably shouldn't feature links that give his home address. For legal reasons, among others. The radio talk-show host Julia Hartley-Brewer has just tweeted a link to the local news piece that previously and mischievously appeared under Footnote 1 in this article, a reference I have now deleted. Hartley-Brewer obviously should not have done that, and she has falsely claimed that Maugham once published her home address when in fact he published her production company's address, which is her accountant's office in a small modern office block on a thundering main road in North London. That is very clearly not where she lives, so she is purporting to exact revenge for something Maugham didn't in fact do, and Wikipedia better hadn't get involved in that kind of thing. (Even if it's shutting the stable door a bit late, because Hartley-Brewer obviously got the link from Wikipedia.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, Maugham publicised the fact that he was the owner of Jack Windmill as far back as 2013. That information is verifiable by reliable sources, and relevant to both this and the Clayton Windmills articles. Adding such information to the article is not in violation of WP:BLP. Any spat between JM and JHB should not be allowed to influence what we can and cannot put on Wikipedia. Another thing which might come up, subjects of BLPs do not get to demand that information is added to, or kept from, articles. Mjroots (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed protection

I've put indefinite autoconfirmed on the article for now, given the repeated attempts to post the subject's address to the page in the face of death threats to the subject - David Gerard (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

also flagged it to the BLP noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@David Gerard: - I'm not seeing it there. Can you show me a diff please? Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Jolyon Maugham However that was October.

The current protection: WP:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive was requested by @MPS1992: because of "Content dispute/edit warring.", which hadn't been discussed here and (as always happens) the protection was then locked in the problem version: thre doxxing is framed in terms of his complaint about it, rather than him being doxxed, and it lets the Daily Mail right off the hook. It also presents him as a Labour party apparatchik, which is nonsensical. A very POV version, which should be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Good Law Project

Don't we think it's time that this organization gets its own article? 81.103.95.22 (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cherrypicking of book reviews

I don't want to get into an idiotic slow edit war but this content seems utterly indefensible to me. Is is clearly cherrypicked to include the most lurid quotes taken from the most negative reviews of his book before spiralling off into utterly irrelevant drama. It is massively POV and I am completely mystified to see it reinstated yet again. It quotes from one right wing national newspaper (fair enough), one very minor far-right magazine (er, why?), the Spectator (which would be OK if it wasn't for the weird focus on trashing the opening sentence without saying what it actually is) and one individual who is not a book reviewer but just an author who campaigns against everything that Maugham stands for and who feuds with him on Twitter. What do we think? Are we going to rewrite this much more neutrally, remove it completely or does this have to go to the BLP noticeboard? If anybody is prepared to engage constructively then here is what I propose. Drop the Unheard and JKR nonsense completely and just keep the Times quote. Include reviews from other serious publications (newspapers, legal publications, etc) so that we have an honest overview of the critical reception. If that really is more negative than positive then that's fine but we should not be mining this for the most dramatic quotes presenting only one viewpoint. DanielRigal (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the description of what the book is actually about (although that could be improved) and removed the drama while keeping the Times quote. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's got lots of sources, but the kinds of publications chosen are in a similar area politically. Celebrities being rude and insulting on twitter are not really relevant, and it reflects more on them and their attitudes than Maugham.

I also agree my description of the book is a bit bland and could include a bit of 3rd party sourcing, but I was trying to create a stub on which we could build to replace the hit piece that keeps being added. Rankersbo (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had to revert again. What do we do if these POV additions continue to be added? Take it to the BLP noticeboard? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: This is now being discussed here: WP:BLPN#POV editing on Jolyon Maugham --DanielRigal (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Came from the noticeboard notification. Because the content was removed on good faith BLP objections, and subsequently restored, I have now removed it again per WP:BLPRESTORE. It should not be restored without a consensus for inclusion.

First step, as with any editing dispute, is to discuss and see where exactly consensus lies. If there are editors who do not wish to engage here, and continue to restore the content without a consensus for inclusion, that is a behavioural issue and can be handled at WP:AE or WP:ANI. Because this is a BLP, and BLPs are designated as a contentious topic, I'd recommend AE as the first port of call.

It seems as though you have a good idea for where to start on the content. Surveying the sources that exist on the book is a sound plan, especially if it is notable enough to have its own article. As for content on social media drama, there is plenty of policy reasons not to include it (WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:ATTACK, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:RS, WP:BLPREMOVE). Any assessment of the sourcing should be done with relevant policies and guidelines in mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not reply here because DanielRigal did not draw my notice to the Talk page discussion. I have now replied on WP:BLPN. I have done a survey of sources and there is exactly one positive review of the book. If he has more, he is free to add them.

Also, he has deleted the section on Maugham's attack on a serving judge (which is something of a pattern with the gentleman) without providing explanation. Atchom (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the "Twitter spat" shouldn't be included. While such events can, in principle, be worthy of recording in a biography, we need much more and better sourcing than was presented in order to show that it is worth including. From the BLPN discussion and prior experience with The Critic coming up here and there, I don't think it's a suitable source for BLP's in general, and the specific item being cited in this case is subject to WP:RSOPINION (as argued by Sideswipe9th over at BLPN) and so not usable in this context. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

No longer a KC

Maugham appears to state in his X bio that he's no longer a KC – and his page on the Bar Standards Board website has been removed:

https://order-order.com/2024/05/31/jolyon-maugham-i-used-to-be-a-kc/

My first edit about this cited his X bio, which was reverted for violating WP:OR. I've since replaced it with this article from Guido Fawkes. Hopefully this is acceptable.

Should the post nominals now be removed from his name and infobox too? Dom Stapleton (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP, and we should be sourcing things to high quality secondary sources, and only what is due. That Maugham has put something in his bio that may or may not be true (but that is quite extraordinary if it is, since being a KC isn't something you can simply resign AFAIK, it has to be revoked) is not terribly interesting. People put all sorts of things in their bio. We can only quote primary, self-published sources like this for uncontentious statements of fact. And Guido is flagged unreliable on WP:RSP so not suitable. Void if removed (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see @1226559706 has reverted this change too, because Guido is not considered reliable. Fair enough. However, the original source of this claim comes from Maugham himself, via his X bio. Doesn't that mean @1226549657's original reversion (to remove the Twitter/X citation) was in error? Isn't this allowed by WP:ABOUTSELF? Dom Stapleton (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone's social media bio declares themselves "king of the world" we don't include that in wikipedia (or shouldn't, anyway). I think that if Maugham were to post an update to the GLP site or something explaining that he is no longer a KC and why, that would be permissible per WP:ABOUTSELF. As it stands this may or may not be true. It may or may not be a valid addition. But if it is true and due, I expect it will be reported in a reliable secondary source, or a better self-published source than an offhand update to a social media bio. Void if removed (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I think it very much depends on what the claim is. 'King of the world' and 'used to be a KC' are not quite the same thing. One is obviously false, the other is perfectly plausible. But yes, I will wait to see if it's mentioned in a reliable secondary source. Thank you.

Incidentally, unless I'm mistaken, the article from the Bar Council says nothing about KCs/QCs needing to be revoked. From what I understand, one can request to have one withdrawn via separate letters patent. Dom Stapleton (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Well yes that's what I mean - you can't just say "I quit", and you can't just stop being a KC because you put it in your bio, it requires a formal revocation. If Maugham has actually resigned (and his absence from the BSB site lends weight to that) then I await a better source with bated breath, but till then this is in the "watch this space" category IMO. Void if removed (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah OK. Sounds like we were both saying the same thing then. I didn't mean to imply that he had stopped being a KC simply by updating his bio. I took for granted that this meant the process had already been carried out. Either way, yes – watch this space! Dom Stapleton (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Failure of claims made by GLP in respect of the appointment of Harding

My edit adding 'The claims made by GLP in respect of the appointment of Harding failed in 2022.' is correct and is supported by the source which I added. The amendment made by Cambial Yellowing introduces irrelevant material about the claim made by the Runnymede Trust. It is also a mess. Cambial Yellowing should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is not supported by the source. You state something that is attributed to a statement by the government department in the source as a fact. That's not what we do here. The material is relevant, given it was brought as part of the same case. There is no "mess". Cambial — foliar❧ 19:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

1) My edit is supported by the source – the claim failed.

2) The claim brought by the Runnymede Trust is not relevant to this article, which is about Jolyon Maugham.

3) Your wording now says: The court ruled that the GLP did not have standing to bring the claims, but for the Runnymede claim ruled that the health secretary, Matt Hancock, failed in his comply with his quality duty in making the appointments. This is not English. failed in his comply? What does this mean? And his quality duty? Sweet6970 (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that the text contained two typos, which I've fixed ("quality" should read "equality"). The source does not explicitly say what you wrote. It does explicitly say what is in the article now. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)