Talk:Geoffrey Cox (British politician)

Comment

All the lawyers not shown as Conservative on the table should be shown that way.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, upon a seccond look, this comment was and is wrong. Sorry!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Controversial items!

I note a number of changes in the last few days reflecting both new input from Daily Telegraph sources and some useful style changes from experts. I had marked some items as needing better sources and was in the process of replacing a Daily Mirror item with a local newspaper source including of course Cox's right of reply when much of it was deleted. This was a new editor and I will replace the deleted content + Daily Mirror section shortly and welcome any discussion of concerns about reliability once he is familiar with the rules. I'm looking for a fair and accurate encyclopedic description and will help if a source can be shown to be wrong. JRPG (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mirror in wp:BLP items

New users may not be aware that we are required to avoid the old tabloid press -see advice below

According to WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun."

According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Whilst I'm quite happy to see the article attributed to the Plymouth Herald so long as a fair summary is provided, I think few editors would accept the Mirror. Feel free to reply, I don't bite and I'm happy to help look for sources -but I may ask someone else to look at the section if it is simply reverted again. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Daily Mirror possibly too partisan a source to be used in this instance, will not reinstate as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.120.187 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Tagging as Vandalism

Re. tagging as vandalism.

any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism.

and

Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

Edit warring over content leads to a rapid ban for all concerned! Editing rules are designed to stop experienced editors from edit wars. No one has labeled any edits as vandalism though new editors often delete valid content without good reason sometimes resulting in edit protection of the page! Please remember to sign talk pages with 4 tildas(~).

Regards JRPG (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Tagging as Biographies of Living Persons

Re. tagging as BLP

all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source

Hansard would appear to meet this.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Re Hansard, its a good source on what has been said but not a wp:reliable source for the content. Nor does it attempt to be neutral point of view. In October 2009 my former MP David Tredinnick, the health expert, told parliament that blood wouldn't clot if the moon was full!!! In general we should avoid commenting on future court or tribunal cases and particularly with reference to an individual. My objective is to make this article factual and fair avoiding wp:peacock and wp:weasel.

This is an encyclopedia not an election manifesto. If any editor has a conflict of interest they should declare it. They can still point out any errors on the talk page -I want to get it right. I've never had a dispute with an editor familiar with the rules but there are agreed dispute resolution facilities. Hope that helps. JRPG (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Should his status as the highest-earning MP be in the lede?

Before he became Attorney General in 2018 (and therefore gave up private practice), Cox was the highest earning MP in Parliament. Should this be in the lead? While it is fairly well referenced, I don't think it should be in there - he is not notable for that in particular. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

BVI details

@DeFacto: I'm a bit confused by the justification of your edit. Firstly removing but resumed after being sacked in February 2020 means that it does not make sense as the previous sentence says that he had stopped working. The source may not explicitly state this, but it is WP:BLUESKY obvious and we don't need a source for something so straightforward. Note that it is not explicit about when he started practicing again, just that it was after he was sacked as AG. Regarding working up to 41 hours a week The Guardian says "working the equivalent of 35 hours a week" and this is what I had added originally, but the primary source is actually more accurate than what The Guardian reported and the use of it is explicitly permitted by BLPPRIMARY "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". You removed reference to Withers LLP which is in The Guardian and introduced a factual error because he was not being paid by the government of BVI. I'm not bothered whether it's over £150,000 or £156,916 but as with the number of hours, including this is explicitly permitted by BLPPRIMARY. SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smartse, 1) we don't know he waited until he was sacked, and it could be understood to say he resumed work in February, and February isn't mentioned in the cited source anyway. 2) "working the equivalent of 35 hours a week" is not the same as "working 35 hours a week" or "working up to 41 hours a week". 3) The use of primary sources is conditional, and those conditions probably need discussing to get a consensus to use them. 4) The Guardian didn't says Withers paid him £156,916. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@DeFacto:1) No, but the February sacking is cited elsewhere in the article and is easily verifiable. Plus we can see that he didn't work whilst the AG from another primary source and it is obvious that this would have been reported over the last few days if it were not the case. The current version makes it completely unclear when this work was performed. 2) No it's not, but up to 41 hours is what the register actually says and you've removed everything even though the amount of hours he's spent working has been widely discussed over the last few days. 3) That's incorrect and you are the only person who has objected to using it. 4) No but it says "Cox earned more than £150,000" and "working for the international law firm Withers." and again, the primary source makes this crystal clear. SmartSE (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smartse, something like this would seem ok: On being appointed as Attorney General on 9 July 2018, Cox gave up private practice, taking it up again some time after returning to the back benches in February 2020. In 2021, Cox was paid more than £150,000 to advise the government of the British Virgin Islands about alleged corruption in a case bought by the Foreign Office. I'm not sure about the reliance on the Daily Mail in the Guardian source to link Withers to the BVI though, or asserting in Wiki's voice the 35 hours a week stuff based on the report of a question being asked of another politician by Radio 4. And I'm not convinced that we should be using the primary source for this sort of 'expansion' of something that doesn't really need expanding.

References

-- DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The Independent have published a good summary of the pertinent details. As you'll see I've updated accordingly and considering your suggestion. There are some more details from that to be added - i.e. the use of his office and the rental of a second property in London. SmartSE (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)