Talk:Jonathan Djanogly

August 2009

Someone with the username user:djanogly has changed the content of the Jonathan Djanogly page, specifically removing referenced material that appeared in the national press. I have reinstated the page to be as it was immediately prior to djanogly's edits—GrahamSmith (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Jewish cats per WP:BLP#Categories or Wikipedia:Categorization of people. While it seems likely Djanogly self identifies as Jewish since he has given a talk at Limmud and hosted a "Jewish Child’s fundraising day" it's not clear that they are "relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life" as these activities are not mentioned in the article, nor is it clear they should be and I don't see anything else that makes Djanogly religion relevant. In terms of the expenses thing, I suspect this should say although haven't considered it in depth but we should mention Djanogly's response without letting it get carried away too much in to WP:Undue weight territory Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, removing my previous comments as original research and/or a violation of Biographies of Living Persons guidelines is a complete farce, as this is the talk page and not the article. Ho Hum, there are more important topics. 149.254.49.109 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

September 2011

Now, I'm probably not expressing myself as well as I might, and I'm not seeking to offend, but start a genuine discussion with the intention of improving this article, but may I please draw the attention of Messrs Stivian (talk) and River19 (talk) to WP:EW?
Guys, it is a real pain having to reinstate properly referenced stuff about Jonathan Djanogly MP that has appeared in the national press after you keep deleting it. Given that neither of you appears to have ever edited anything other than Jonathan Djanogly and that your edits appear mainly to remove matters of public interest that might be seen as damaging to Mr Djanogly, might I please ask you to state your connection with Mr Djanogly? For the record, I have no connection with the gentleman, and am simply interested in Wikipedia present a true, honest, complete and factual account of the man as derived from national press and similar reputable sources.—GrahamSmith (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP: Undue weight before altering my edits to the expenses section. Stivian (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits 5-9-11

The recent changes reflect a neutral position rather than GrahamSmith's heavily weighted, unsourced opinions based on fragments of tabloid stories. Please try to keep this page factual, up-to-date and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by River19 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please could you declare your connexion to Mr Djanogly and/or the Conservative Party, and also what other accounts you have edited the article from. DuncanHill (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to WP: Undue weight before altering my edits to the expenses section. Stivian (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Connexion is the more traditional spelling, as any good dictionary will confirm. As you will know from the article history, my involvement in this article has been minimal - mainly I've just restored text and references removed by simgle purpose accounts, some of them (including yours) also being sockpuppets. As you have a history of abusing multiple accounts to promote the image of Mr Djanogly and remove referenced information which some may see as negative, it is reasonable to assume that you have some connexion with him or wish to promote his interests. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case relating to this article

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stivian/Archive for details. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal Services Bill

Look, I don't want to keep knocking Mr Djanogly, but it seems he's his own worst enemy. Would anyone object if I added a reference to last Friday's Guardian article, entitled "Conservative MP piloting legal aid cuts may profit from the changes", which has the byline "Jonathan Djanogly's role as insurance firm partner means he could personally profit from bill he is pushing through parliament."?

Perhaps something along the lines of: "In September 2011, an investigation by The Guardian revealed that Djanogly will personally profit from the changes contained in the proposed Legal Services Bill, for which he has ministerial responsibility.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Randeep | first1 = Ramesh | authorlink1 = http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/randeepramesh | date = 16 September 2011 | year = 2011 | month = September | title = Conservative MP piloting legal aid cuts may profit from the changes | journal = [[The Guardian]] | publisher = [[Guardian Media Group]] | issn = 0261-3077 | accessdate = 19 September 2011 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/16/conservative-mp-legal-aid-cuts | quote = The Conservative justice minister piloting controversial plans to cut legal aid and curb payouts that could benefit the insurance industry to the tune of a billion pounds a year will personally profit from the changes, a Guardian investigation can reveal.}}</ref>—GrahamSmith (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting to see if any of the other reputable media sources run with this story. Using an opinion of one source (especially the Guardian) seems a little unfair. I have looked and Djanogly's business interests are declared and always have been so it would seem unnecessarily punitive to link this story to Djanogly's article as an encyclopedic portayal of his character. Stivian (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a further allegation concerning Djanogly's flouting of the ministerial code has appeared in the Telegraph (whose article states "The apparent potential conflict of interest had not been disclosed to his department's most senior civil servant, as is required under strict Whitehall rules to ensure impartiality in government decisions".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Watt | first1 = Holly | authorlink1 = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/holly-watt/ | date = 04 October 2011 | year = 2011 | month = October | title = Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly did not declare children's legal shares | journal = [[The Daily Telegraph]] | publisher = [[Telegraph Media Group]] | issn = 0307-1235 | accessdate = 07 October 2011 | url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8805760/Justice-minister-Jonathan-Djanogly-did-not-declare-childrens-legal-shares.html | quote = Mr Djanogly's children owned shares in Going Legal and Legal Link Introductory Services but were understood to have sold them over the weekend after being contacted by The Daily Telegraph.}}</ref>) and also the Guardian.—GrahamSmith (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Profession

Former practicing solicitor - I think it is only fair to say that he does not cuurrently practice as a solicitor, if he was still practicing this might have implications for his role at the Justice Ministry. Not going to get into an argument if anyone reverts this, I'm not necessarily a fan of his, just trying to be fair. Hadrian789 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Hadrian789

Thank you for this. I have added a reference to his January 2005 speech, at which time he declared an interest as a practicing solicitor.—GrahamSmith (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It might also have implications for whether he can fully commit to being our MP. The citation in the text only affirms that he has been a solicitor, and does not support the assertion there that he is a formerly practising solicitor. Hadrian 789 asserts above that he does not currently practise; can we have a citation for this please? Otherwise a simple statment in "Talk" is nugatory. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

2017 election

I'm trying to make the section about the 2017 election more neutral. The tone in this revision is quite biased. It states that he was "*wrongly* accused" even though the point doesn't seem to be resolved in the cited article, we just have the constituent claiming he did nothing and Djanogly claiming he did something. It also tries to emphasise the point about her being a Labour activist - that point should be left in (and I have done) as it seems relevant but not in a way that directly tries to imply that the accusation was false.

The other removed statement, "something she later admitted to the local newspaper when Djanogly offered to provide evidence of their extensive correspondence and the representations he had made on her behalf" also implies a connection between the "admission" and the offer which is not made in the article. 82.153.21.1 (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)