Talk:Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Article says "In the history of the Appellate Committee, there have been only four appointments of men straight from the Bar, without any intervening full-time judicial experience. Two were Scots lawyers: Lord Macmillan in 1930 and Lord Reid in 1948; the others were Lord Carson (1921) and Lord Radcliffe (1949)."

Marcel Berlins apparently using "The Judicial House of Lords 1876-2009" (OUP) wrote on 28.09.2009 "...he will be only the eighth member of the highest court to have been appointed straight from the bar, without any experience as a professional judge, but the first since 1949 and only the third from England. Four of the others were Scottish advocates and one was a barrister from pre-independence Ireland. But Sumption would be unique among the eight in having had no experience whatever in any governmental or parliamentary capacity.

The four Scots, the Irishman and one of the English former law lords had all been law officers in their respective countries..."

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree [1]

I suppose it depends how you define "full-time judicial experience" but I would contend the Berlins version is more informative.

Cannonmc (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Current rumour

This blog explains why there is current speculation. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And today there is an article in the Times, "Jonathan Sumption wins Supreme Court place 18 months after being blocked"; which is behind a paywall. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There now somthing at [2], and I suppose official announcements may follow. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Should he now be listed as PC?

I am not well-informed on how British titles operate, but I note that he was appointed last year to the Privy Council. Would this imply that he should get PC after his name -- either before or after the OBE? Nandt1 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, only peers use "PC". He simply gets "The Right Honourable" in front of his name. Proteus (Talk) 18:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be slow about who is and is not in the "peerage" but he is now "Lord" Sumption? Help us -- explain! Nandt1 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The article Peerage will give you some background. Justices of the Supreme Court who are not peers (all the recently appointed ones) use courtesy titles that make them look sort-of-like peers. The main difference in form is that peers have a definite article before their title whereas Lord Sumption is simply "Lord Sumption" and not "The Lord Sumption". Were he not to be a Privy Counsellor he would be simply "Lord Sumption, OBE", so the fact that he is "The Rt Hon. Lord Sumption, OBE" is enough to show he's a Privy Counsellor. Peers are "The Right Honourable" (or higher) already, so if they are also Privy Counsellors they need the letters to show that. Proteus (Talk) 12:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Nandt1 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Restoring cut to explanation of how Supreme Court is successor to Appellate Committee

Hello, Rrius,

I am sure your cutting of this article's explanation of how the Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee was well-intended -- you noted that this was not relevant as JS was not joining the Appellate Committee but the Supreme Court. However, if you continue in the article, you will see that later on there is a comparative discussion of the tiny handful of lawyers who went directly from the Bar to the Appellate Committee (as JS has to the committee's successor). For lay readers (like Yours truly), the relevance of a discussion of direct elevation to the Appellate Committee will not be obvious unless they are told that the Supreme Court is its successor.

Best wishes with your future edits. Nandt1 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Publications

The publication data for The Age of Pilgrimage (2003) show it to be a reissue of the 1973 Pilgrimage - I do not have the book but the copyright details of the later book are visible on the Barnes & Noble site. I have amended the publications list accordingly. If in fact there are revisions too possibly someone can say so.Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The link under "Articles" to the Spectator article doesn't work. I tried to find a working link to that article, but failed.Twr57 (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Move

Shouldn't the article be moved to Jonathan Sumption, Baron Sumption (or posssibly Lord Sumption) per Wikipedia naming conventions? --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, it should be Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption per the courtesy titles (see also: John Dyson, Lord Dyson in the same boat). Unless anyone objects, I will be bold and move it tomorrow. --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. We generally avoid putting styles in article titles except when it it is the most straightforward way to disambiguate the person. In this case the proponent and User:Necrothesp argue that it's usual for Supreme Court justices. To evaluate this claim you could check out List of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and look at the entries for members of the Supreme Court. It does not seem there is enough support here to override our usual reluctance to put styles in titles. Maybe a change in the guideline could be proposed? EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Consistency with other UK Supreme Court justices (see e.g. John Dyson, Lord Dyson). Currently redirect points the other way, so main pages and associated talk pages should effectively be switched – --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• But are there other men called Jonathan Sumption to need to disambig from? There are several other men called John Dyson. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure Lord Dyson's page is named to disambiguate it - they could have used Sir John Dyson or John Dyson (judge) if it was only to disambiguate from other persons named John Dyson. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We do appear to be using the full style for Supreme Court justices, whether we need to disambiguate or not, just as we do for Scottish judges. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:PRECISE, this person is not a peer, not even a lifepeer. This person highest honour is the OBE, not a KBE or Grand Cross. The style is just that, and nothing more. We don't title knights/dames with "Sir" or "Dame" attached to their article names, and all these justices should similarly have theirs removed. Indeed, Sirs and Dames have a greater right to theirs as it wasn't a summary courtesy as a result of their job. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDAB. (Yes, it's an essay, but it reflects policy-based reasoning that applies here). --B2C 20:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that WP:UNDAB redirects to Wikipedia:Unnecessary disambiguation, which is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay largely written by B2C. There is nothing wrong with editors creating an essay which explains their views, provided that they disclose the document's status and their own role in creating it. B2C's failure to mention his own authorship misleads others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
    • So the primary author of WP:BRD needs to note that they are the primary author whenever citing it? And the primary author of WP:JDLI needs to the same? Etc.? Where is that rule written? Have you ever seen anyone do that anywhere? Once again you are holding me to a standard nobody else is expected to meet. --B2C 21:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Styling Supreme Court Justices "Lords" is a little bit more than just a courtesy title. They no longer get a life peerage, true, but they are still titled Law Lords. They don't get the traditional judicial knighthood even though more junior lawyers (Court of Appeal justices and High Court justices) still do, which suggests the Lord title is more than a mere courtesy title. Certainly no one will ever call him "Mr Sumption" for the remainder of his life. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Association with Keith Joseph

On 30 June 2018 an unregistered user deleted the entirety of the subsection on Sumption's early career working for the cabinet minister, Keith Joseph. The subsection has now been restored.

The fact of Sumption's association with Keith Joseph is a matter of public record, and doesn't appear to be controversial - they co-wrote and published a book together, which is referred to with citations in the subsection. The rest of the subsection is similarly well-sourced and cited.

The user responsible for the deletion seems to have felt that the inclusion in the article of Sumption's history working for a political figure was biased, but the deleted text appears to be a factual and unemotive account of Sumption's involvement in an important historical event. The references to Sumption's authorship of the Edgbaston speech come from a recorded public lecture given by the Oxford academic Vernon Bogdanor, who is a widely-published expert on the British constitution.

The other sources for the subsection, which in some cases are shared with other subsections, are also apparently reliable and come from all over the political spectrum, from the centre, left and right: The Times, the BBC, the Independent, the Guardian etc.

The deletion has been undone. The user responsible for the edit may wish to reach a consensus about any substantial future edits to the article here on the Talk page first, and could perhaps make a contribution to the section on Sumption's historical work, if that part of his career is under-represented in the article, as they suggest. TW Enquist (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the user who made the deletion, and it should be mentioned that he worked for Joseph and wrote that speech, but I should think that the rule against undue weight kicks in in this case. Lord Sumption is famous because he's a senior judge and because he's a prominent historian, in that order. His work for Joseph is not noteworthy enough to deserve such a lengthy section - and there certainly isn't a need to quote the speech at such length. Atchom (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Police state" comments

Should this be added? Ames, Jonathan (2020-03-31). "Lord Sumption warns against police overstepping limits". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 2020-03-31. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Edgbaston speech

Lord Sumption has explicitly denied that he had any part in writing the Edgbaston speech in 1974 given by Keith Joseph in the following BBC radio interview with Nick Robinson. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08fjy9j Ajs41 (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the Vernon Bogdanor podcast alleging that he was the speechwriter (it was wrongly attributed at the time to Alfred Sherman) is still up ....Paulturtle (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Source for comments on Planet Normal

Hello all- I added {{Cite podcast}} where there was a call for a citation on a quote by Sumption, then realized it somewhat duplicates an existing citation to the same work that uses the standard {{Cite news}}. I decided to leave it as is for now, but someone may feel it better to consolidate them. I also removed the quotation marks as the text is not exactly what Sumption states in the podcast, assuming I am citing the appropriate point in the interview. Please correct me if I missed something. Eric ^talk 20:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary style needed

In an article that is 2,290 words long, 900 words of that is spent detailing Sumption's views on the COVID-19 pandemic. This is disproportionate given the size of the article, leaving it unbalanced in its coverage. Articles need to be written in a summary style. It should be possible to distil Sumption's views into a couple of paragraphs rather than the current sprawl. Where his views on the pandemic are detailed, it would also be worth focusing on his areas of expertise, ie: legal matters rather than his speculations on the health impact of the virus. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was just looking at this. I made one small edit, but really the whole thing is wildly disproportionate. Metamagician3000 (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I've summarised it quite a bit, I think the style warning at the start of the section can probably be removed now? Gd123lbp (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Collins is not Lawrence Collins

The changes I made which referred to Sumption's judicial review application against Greenwich council, were incorrectly reverted with the words "not an improvement". They were an improvement because they corrected an obvious error. The judge in that case was Mr Justice Collins, as the footnoted law report confirms. That judge was Andrew Collins, now retired, and never a judge of the Court of Appeal. The incorrect text, which I corrected, referred to Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, later Lord Collins of Mapesbury. When he was a High Court judge, that judge's title was "Mr Justice Lawrence Collins" (to distinguish him from Mr Justice (Andrew) Collins, who was appointed earlier) and he was a judge of the Chancery division, not of the Queen's Bench division, would not have heard planning judicial review and did not hear this case. Please don't revert it without a source which records that the judge was Mr Justice Lawrence Collins. You will not find such a source, because it was not the case. Ironman1104 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

My blunder, partly technical; mea culpa here. Note to Ironman: You were logged out for your above post. Eric ^talk 19:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I was accidentally logged out for a minor correction. Not for the main point. Unsure why you think the observation was at all useful. Ironman1104 22:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I was just letting you know in case something was up that was un-logging you and you hadn't noticed. That happened to me once, and I inadvertently made edits as an IP user. It puzzled me until I realized what had happened. Eric ^talk 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Excessive resume-like section in article

List of all his Covid articles. This is probably not encyclopedic. But the list is here in case something encyclopedic can be made of it.

Articles on COVID-19 "lockdown" measures

• Sumption, Jonathan (26 March 2020). "There is a difference between the law and the official instructions", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (5 April 2020). "We are so afraid of death no one even asks whether this 'cure' is actually worse", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (3 May 2020). "Locking up the elderly until coronavirus is defeated is a cruel mockery of basic human values", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (14 May 2020). "Lockdown challenges face tough audience", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (17 May 2020). "Set us free from lockdown, ministers, and stop covering your backs", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (17 May 2020). 'You cannot imprison an entire population', The Spectator.
• Sumption, Jonathan (19 May 2020). "A Response to my critics on Lockdown", The Spectator.
• Sumption, Jonathan (26 May 2020). "The only coherent position is locking down without limit - or not locking down at all", Prospect.
• Sumption, Jonathan (11 June 2020). "Social distancing destroys our lives as social beings", The Spectator.
• Sumption, Jonathan (13 June 2020). "We are damaging a generation of children", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (21 June 2020). "These people have no idea what they're doing", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (27 July 2020). "The virus has taken our liberty. Must it take our humanity as well?", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (15 August 2020). "The public is sick of the Government's pointless and clumsy gestures during the coronavirus crisis", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (13 September 2020). "No 'rule of six', please, we're British. We can make our own decisions", The Sunday Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (26 September 2020). "What kind of a country have we become when arrogant bullying is seen as the proper function of Ministers?", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (1 October 2020). "Rebel MPs are right - ministers must not be free to rule by decree", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (2 October 2020). "Boris Johnson's 'strongman' Government is destroying democracy", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (17 October 2020). "I'm yet to meet a single person who plans to obey the ban on meeting friends indoors...why on earth should they?", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (22 October 2020). "Britain's Bizarre Italian Travel Guidance', The Spectator.
• Sumption, Jonathan (28 October 2020). "'This is how freedom dies': the folly of Britain's coercion strategy", The Spectator.
• Sumption, Jonathan (4 November 2020). "England underestimates the costs of lockdown at its peril", The Guardian.
• Sumption, Jonathan (11 November 2020). "Lockdown laws leave no place for common sense of individual judgment", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (21 November 2020). "Our lives belong to us, not the state", The Daily Mail.
• Sumption, Jonathan (5 December 2020). "Public welfare matters more than public health", The Times.
• Sumption, Jonathan (19 December 2020). "The simple truth is that Lockdowns do not work", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (7 January 2021). "Youtube censorship is a symptom of a corrosive philosophy", The Daily Telegraph.
• Sumption, Jonathan (12 January 2021). "It is not the police's job to enforce the lockdown whims of ministers", The Daily Telegraph.

- David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

David, to what section are you referring in your section heading? And are you proposing something here? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious. Eric ^talk 01:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The section I moved to this talk page - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I see now. Yes, this list would almost constitute a standalone article (not proposing that). Eric ^talk 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the section on Covid19 is very relevant, but has several typo's and way too many unnecessary "he said, she said" exchanges. The point Sumption was making was that some "at risk" people were likely to die earlier if they contracted Covid19, but the draconian measures were fundamentally wrong. The statement that some people's lives are more important than others was perfectly reasonable - and true. A lousy woke BBC program deliberately pitting him against a sick woman, in the guise of a debate is a rotten example though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.25.197 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Been WP:BOLD and moved it, including the rest of the bibliog, to its own page; see that for attributory detail. Also agree with DG, eric and the anon. ——Serial 18:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Section still excessive

The COVID section still looks very excessive and gossipy to me. It certainly shouldn't take up practically half the article as it does now, see WP:BALASP. It also isn't as though he's stopped his other work and is only focusing on COVID—see his comments in parliamentary evidence from January 2021 discussed at Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill e.g. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

After reading through the section more carefully, I would propose, rather than listing the when and where of every instance he talked about the issue and repeatedly noting the same set of arguments, to condense the section down to a paragraph or two concisely stating the distinct arguments he has made on the topic, with reference to the sources already given. As far as I can tell these arguments are the following:

• Sumption has been highly critical of the British government's use of lockdown to curb the COVID-19 pandemic, arguing against restrictions on the public, in defence of the rights and civil liberties of the private individual.
  • This one should probably be rewritten for POV (e.g. "arguing that restrictions on the public unduly infringe private rights and civil liberties").
• police forces [...] [have] followed the wishes of ministers instead of just the law
• Sumption claimed evidence existed indicating the virus was very mild compared to other pandemics in the 20th century
• "lockdown and the quarantine rules and most of the other regulations have been made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984", not the Coronavirus Act 2020 itself [...] thus the powers purported by the Johnson government to enforce lockdown measures on the whole population are in fact ultra vires
• the new coronavirus social distancing policy [...] was unenforceable
• government action had "virtually no impact" on mortality rates

Finally the extended paragraph about his appearance on The Big Questions could probably be boiled down to a sentence saying that he was criticised for rejecting that all lives are of equal value there, plus the last point above. I don't think any of this would diminish the seriousness of the controversy, since as it is the vast majority of people will just have their eyes glaze over long before they even get to the Big Questions paragraph.

Pinging the users who participated in discussions above . —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 18:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to tackle this, Nizolan. Your overall approach sounds good, and I think the bublletpoints are an accurate summary of the main points. Points 3 and 6 are the most challenging because they go into the territory of medicine and epidemiology, which is beyond Sumption's field of expertise. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

yeah. We should be able to state his views ... was there any public pushback on these opinions of his? - David Gerard (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting it into concise and encyclopedic form would be a good approach, yes. Go for it :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had a crack at further condensing this section as it gave undue weight and space to Sumption's advocacy of fringe theories, including overly long direct quotes from him that are not necessary for context, while also minimising and having few details of criticism of him (including the Full Fact link which is only mentioned in passing and does not explain what mis-information he is responsible for. Foonblace (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2021-05-17-0001 trans NvBQzQNjv4Bqn4yNrt39GFuBL9Y1hr9NDZtv9yH8KBCWBAW9HDqW2No.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Assertion re "promoting misinformation"

Hello all- At the moment, the last sentence of the this article's intro makes the standalone statement Sumption promoted COVID-19 misinformation, without any elaboration. I see this as gratuitous, especially when referring to an erudite former supreme court judge and highly respected historian, and especially in the intro section — as if it were one of the principal aspects of Sumption's noteworthiness. The statement is sourced to an entry on a "fact-checking" website, of all things, a weak source which to my mind diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia.
Some perspective on "Full Fact", the Facebook- and Google-funded website used in the reference:

• How neutral is “Full Fact”?
• Fact-Checking Websites (like Full Fact) and Their Own Political Bias –Eric ^talk 15:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: Now I see that while I was writing the above post, Khiikiat greatly improved the wording of the sentence. Still, I don't think that bit belongs in the intro, and I think we should take "Full Fact" with a grain of salt. Eric ^talk 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eric: Yes, I agree. It shouldn't be in the introduction. Khiikiat (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eric: Thanks for changing the wording. There was indeed no mention of "misinformation" in the sources. However, even if he is an "erudite supreme court judge and highly respected historian", that doesn't mean he could not/does not make incorrect statements about COVID. He is not an erudite or well respected epidemiologist or public health expert, but has attracted considerable media attention during the pandemic with his views on it. I'm also pretty sure a medium post is not a good WP:SOURCE for saying Full Fact is unreliable. The Critic (British magazine) also appears to have quite an explicit political leaning. So not sure about this reasoning. And even with that said, Sumption's incorrect statements about COVID deaths outlined in the Full Fact article speak for themselves - saying fewer than 100,000 people died of COVID in the UK is just categorically untrue based on the official data sourced in the article. Perhaps this doesn't need to be in the lead but I think cutting down the summary of the Full Fact piece in the COVID views section is sanitising the article. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't take credit for changing the wording. Yes, Sumption, like anyone, is capable of error. And, like many other non-epidemiologists, he is also capable of informing himself regarding public health policy and expressing a valid opinion on it. My point re his erudition and the regard in which he is held was to suggest that he might not be inclined to be careless in his statements, and that he might not be seeking to misinform people; he is retired, well-off, and doesn't have a dog in the race, so to speak. Regarding the official figures tallying deaths "of Covid", I think you will find that they will be much discussed and revised in the coming months and years, as they already have been in many countries. I don't know about the status of the ONS numbers, but ONS is not infallible, having published questionable testing numbers, and there are accounts of the "Covid" stamp being liberally applied to death certificates in the UK. In any case, as I state above, I think we can do better than to make a throwaway statement in the intro that Sumption was "promoting misinformation", based merely on a blurb from a "fact-checking" website. Eric ^talk 13:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

His status has no bearing over whether or not he is capable of making incorrect statements, nor does whether he has an obvious motive for doing so. Neither are relevant to how this article should cover his views. Although COVID deaths are indeed subject to revision, they are actually mostly undercounted, not overcounted. Your suggestion that UK COVID deaths statistics are exaggerated is WP:FRINGE and not supported by reliable evidence, much like some of Sumption's views. Please refer to WP:FRINGE, WP:COVID-19 and WP:MEDRS for how the pandemic is covered on Wikipedia. This includes on biographical articles; I only say this as a previous version of this article had a very lengthy COVID section that was seemingly just a soapbox for opposition to restrictions until @Foonblace: made this much needed edit. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how WP is covering the "pandemic" and defining "fringe". Keep up the good work. Un-watching now. Eric ^talk 19:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

And there it is lol. Thanks for the discussion. Glad to hear you are aware of WP's consensus on COVID.Arcahaeoindris (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am note registered here, just a guest who points out mistakes once in a while. Arcaheoindris, your edit might have been "much needed" but I'm afraid your edit is not more NPOV than the previous version was. You say it was "seemingly just a soapbox for opposition to restrictions" - well, now it serves that sense for proponents of restrictions. I'm referring to this sentence "...while also arguing that the effects of lockdowns may be worse than the effects of the actual virus, a view which has minimal scientific or evidentiary support.[9][59][60]". None of the three mentioned sources backs that point. There are very few papers that argue that the costs of lockdowns outweigh the benefits (e.g. by Doug Allen or by Ari Joffe), but there are also very few papers who come to the conclusion that lockdowns were beneficial. There's a lot of studies on the epidemiological effects of lockdown coming to completely different conclusion from "lockdowns saved millions of lives" (most prominently Flaxman et al. 2020, but under completely unrealistic assumptions) up to "lockdowns didn't do much" (as there is no obvious relation between lockdown stringency and Covid deaths). But none of these studies takes all the costs and benefits into account. Given how much lockdowns affected every aspect of our lives, that's not an easy task and outside the scope of most research. Lockdowns have affected a lot of intangible, uncountable things such as cultural values, individual well-being, everyone's future plans and dreams, etc. I doubt it will ever be possible to throw all of that in a scientific model and get out a number stating whether the effects of lockdowns were net-positive or not. There may be a political consensus that lockdowns were a good idea in many countries, but I don't think there is anything remotely close to a scientific consensus on the costs and benefits of lockdowns. Therefore I don't think it is fair to "flag" the view that the effects of lockdowns MAY be worse than the virus (not even with certainty) with this warning label of missing scientific support. Best regards, Jean von Agris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.52.190.121 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jean. Thanks for pointing out the lack of verification. The sentence in question wasn't mine, but I will change it to improve neutrality if the statement has failed WP:VERIFICATION. Also, please do not remove references from reliable sources. This is also not the page for discussing the necessity or harms of COVID restrictions - please see COVID-19 lockdowns for that, where you will see what the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources say about whether such drastic measures are justified. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sumption, Hundred Years Wars, III & IV.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Crossbencher or Tory?

Where does he sit in the Lords? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Resignation from board of ENO

Will somebody update this article following Lord Sumption's resignation in June? Putthemright (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)