Talk:Josh Simons

Labour Together & ACPO

Pinging @Pol098. Where should the information about this go? This article is currently divided into Early career and academia and Parliamentary career but this episode spans both periods. Does it warrant its own section? Orange sticker (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I had just noticed the duplication, and am about to revert my addition and maybe modify the earlier section. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think your wording was better. Orange sticker (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have just reverted a number of edits by temporary user ~2026-18295-65 as they have added information not supported by sources and there seemed to be an element of reputation polishing going on, but I'd welcome input from other editors on whether or not this might have been the case.

One detail that I have removed is Simons' involvement in a recent court case against Meta which found that they had harmed users' mental health, in which he testified and has made claims he tried to warn Meta while he worked there, this all seems suspiciously convenient to be added by someone who also added, unsourced Simons graduated top of his year with a starred double-first. The information that Simons testified seems to come from his BBC interview, so I'm not sure if it should be included, or how, under WP:NPOV. Orange sticker (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment and it looks like it's still taking place on this page. New accounts with similar usernames are removing any less flattering elements. CurtainRails (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I've just checked the most recent edits and they all seemed legit, didn't spot the one by the TA. Might be worth requesting protection for this article. Orange sticker (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

See edit by throwaway @~2026-27374-41 yesterday removing criticism. Agreed on protection point. CurtainRails (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've done my best to restore it manually while keeping @Silas T Comberbache's constructive edits. Orange sticker (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I really do not like wiki pages where an allegation is presented as a true bill. I think this second graph likely violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policies by omitting that an independent investigation found he did not breach the ministerial code. To meet standards, ideally, an article must present both allegations and outcomes fairly, rather than creating a one-sided narrative that gives undue weight to controversy. Perhaps review Wikipedia's policy on [Link: Neutral point of view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view]? I would certainly put at least one short line in here: "an investigation by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards concluded he did not breach the Ministerial Code." Silas T Comberbache (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You're quite right, I've left the Adviser's conclusion in in the section that goes into more detail, but the lead section needs to be more concise and I think it's OK to just summarise what he did and how it resulted in his resignation, but if you'd like to reword, go ahead. Orange sticker (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's just in the opening section, which in matters of fairness where most people would stop reading and probably make their minds up. I think to be fair that should probably reflect the end finding: Something like: "An investigation by the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards concluded he did not breach the Ministerial Code. " Silas T Comberbache (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok I think that fixes it, just needed to combine for one succinct line. Silas T Comberbache (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)