Talk:The Secret Barrister

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New Book and Page Split

Given there is now a second book published by the same author (Fake Law) and the publicity the author has received for activity on social media, do we need to consider spitting into separate pages for the book and the author. Tracland (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracland, This page is about the first book, but if anyone wants to do it there would I'm sure be enough reliable sources for a separate article on the author and (soon) the second book. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title

The book's proper title is The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken. This is made clear in the second book: See the "also by" page at the beginning, page 178, pages 197 and 199, and also footnote 25 on page 299. It's also how the book is recorded at the British Library. I tried to move the page but couldn't because the target page already exists as a redirect. I will request a page move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, once I know whether this will be contested or not. Richard75 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I initially called the article, but it caused problems as it appears to be [title]:[subtitle], and book subtitles are not normally part of the article title. Editors then remove the 'subtitle' leaving "The Secret Barrister" which is unfortunately the name of the author and doesn't uniquely represent the book. I'd suggest leaving the wording as it is, as anything else is likely to result in repeated changes/reverts.MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument for leaving it alone, but it's at the expense of accuracy, which isn't ideal. Couldn't we avoid the problem by putting a hidden note (using ) to warn users not to interfere with it? Richard75 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t think that’s possible in a title. But I won’t object if there is consensus to make the move MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant in the opening sentence. I'll wait and see if anyone else weighs in. Richard75 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the move. At first sight it does seem irrational to name "The Secret Barrister" as both the author and the title, but that seems to be what bibliographers have consistently done in the real world, and we should follow suit. GrindtXX (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved to The Secret Barrister. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stories of the Law and How It's Broken → The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken – Full title of the book, currently appearing under its subtitle (because The Secret Barrister is also the pseudonym of the author). But it's the correct full title, according to the author, the publisher and the British Library. Discussed at article's talk page. Richard75 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard75 and Buidhe: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the best title then be "The Secret Barrister", which is both the main title and the alias of the author (and redirects here)? (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be content with just The Secret Barrister instead. Richard75 (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is to note that, although this article is predominantly about the first book (Stories of the Law ...), it's also all we currently have on the second book (Fake Law) and the author "The Secret Barrister"). It does seem distinctly possible that one or both of those latter topics may be spun off at some point into separate articles, in which case we may have to rethink. However, for the time being I'd be happy with "The Secret Barrister". GrindtXX (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No case to answer! The correct title of the book (according to primary sources apparently) is not necessarily the correct title of our article, not by a long way. Possibly The Secret Barrister would be a better title but it's a big change of scope. Andrewa (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is the book "The Secret Barrister" worthy of its own Wikipedia article, and , if so, should not the article be more balanced with criticism as well as praise?

The book "The Secret Barrister" does not appear to contain any real discussion of fundamental issues such as whether the take over of prosecutions by the state, in England and Wales (a process that started in the 1870s, but took quite some years to reach the present situation), has turned out well or not. The work appears to be a request for more money by an author who admits to working in the system themselves and, therefore, would presumably benefit from an increase in such funding - is such a seemingly self serving work worthy of its own Wikipedia article, and, if so, should the article be so entirely uncritical - containing praise, but, basically, no real opposition to the author's demands for more money? For example, the author compares the court system to the National Health Service - but seems to ignore the fact that National Health Service funding has been greatly increased, with no corresponding improvement in the service - why should the court system prove to be any different?. Why is there no critical section in the article? PaulvMarks (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the sources, which were pretty well unanimous in praising the book when it first appeared. If there are now other reliable sources which take a different view, by all means include them. Though bear in mind this is an article on a specific book - and not a general overview of UK law or politics. A "real discussion of fundamental issues such as whether the take over of prosecutions by the state [since the 1870s] has turned out well or not" falls far outside the scope of this article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is that because the establishment sources were "pretty well unanimous" in praising a book, written by a member of the establishment, demanding more money, you think there is no need for any critical section at all - and the entire article should remain, basically, a "puff piece" the sort of thing a publisher puts out to sell more books. As for the statement that any discussion of the basic problems of the structure of the system (such as the take over of prosecutions by the state) "falls far outside the scope of this article" - that clearly indicates that the book is not a serious examination of the structure of the system and is, in effect, a self interested demand for more money from someone who works in, and has friends and associates in, the system for which he is demanding more money. I repeat that the author makes the comparison of the court system with the National Health Service - without mentioning that the National Health Service has had a very large increase in funding without any corresponding improvement in the service. PaulvMarks (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If there are now other reliable sources which take a different view, by all means include them". MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]