Talk:Julie Meyer

Contempt of court

Is there merit adding a section about Meyer's recent court issues? There is an account of her activities in this judgment: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/362.html, culminating in a contempt ruling against her: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/entrepreneur-in-contempt-over-200000-dispute-with-farrer-and-co/5111592.article

If so, would someone more competent than me like to add that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:901:4E00:385E:20B6:AA48:61AE (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Contributions towards Julie Meyer's wikipedia page

{{request edit}}

Dear Editor,

My names is Kapil Arya and I am writing to you on behalf of Lansons, a PR company that represent Ms Julie Meyer and Ariadne Capital. We were hoping to contribute some new information about Julie to help ensure that the page is as up-to-date and accurate as possible. We are, however, unsure about how best to go about suggesting new contributions and were hoping to seek your advice on this. All information will, of course, be supported by relevant documents and links to public sources. If you could offer any advice about how to update Julie’s page it would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

Kapil

Kapil Arya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.200.228 (talk • contribs) 07:54, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Good practice is to provide:

1. The existing text which should be replaced (optional, if the only desired edit is an addition)
2. The desired text to be used instead
3. A RS supporting the new material

In some cases, it may be helpful to provide some context, e.g. is this simply missing material, has something changed, is the existing material wrong, or just awkwardly worded.

Here is an example:

The section foo currently read:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

It would be better if it read:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

The facts are supported by:

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 17:46, June 24, 2014‎(UTC)

Start again from a stub?

This page was recently in the press. To put it plainly, the page is a train wreck. Not only does it reflect badly on the subject, it also reflects badly on us for failing to address the article's many failings. One way forward, since she is plainly notable but we do not have confidence in the current version, might be to strip it back to almost nothing and start again from a stub? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support. Yes you are right, it would be less hassle to just start from scratch. Even though she a very notable personality the page lacks regular watchers to monitor edits. Keep in mind this page will be monitored by the media and will be the center of attention in the court proceedings if they did not manage reach some kind of settlement. Nicky mathew (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

All the previous versions will still be there in the history. We have a duty to present something sensible to our readers and this page isn't doing it at present. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it, while we are at it, also not be decent if the editor who wrote the quite elaborate "Julie Meyer and Ariadne Capital is a 'scam'" above would at least make clear that he or she has no affiliation with any parties in the field where Mrs Meyer works? It seems fair to hang on onto 'not guilty until proven', especially while media attention ramps up. (this editor has no affiliation). --Wikivolunteeer (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently "it's a house built on sound". I don't think that anyone is going to take anonymous comments too seriously on this page that only we look at, particularly given the other press comments. Perhaps someone will delete it as potentially libellous? I also have no connection with any party mentioned. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just taken a lot out including all the litigation and the bits that seemed like puffery. Revert me if you think I have gone too far (or take more out if not far enough). Philafrenzy (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not too bad in its current state. I don't think it should be cut back to a stub. I'll help to further improve it this week.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not going to be cut back further. It is now a sound basis for an expansion in fact. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am finding the edits to be somewhat aggressive and extreme, so I am going to leave Keithbob to do the work here. I had hoped to work on the article as I have a background in investment banking and would have a productive approach to this editing. I also think this article should be a bit kinder than it is turning out to be -- not a surprise on Wikipedia #sigh. I don't really want to be a part of this now. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisions

Unless her sister is notable, her first name is trivia and violates her privacy per WP:BLPNAME.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Have at it Keithbob. You've approached this in a way I'm not interested in continuing. -- BrillLyle (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In BLPs its extra important to use only reliable sources and to represent them accurately in the article. I'm happy to collaborate and discuss as needed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed Content due to faulty sources

I've removed this content:

• 1) Her father was a pulmonologist in Carmichael, California. ref name=DelMeyerMD-About>{{cite web|title=About Dr. Meyer - Profile|url=http://www.delmeyer.net/AboutDrMeyer/Profile.aspx%7Cwebsite=Del Meyer, M.D.|accessdate=15 March 2016
• 2) She has a sister named Melanie. ref name=CarmichaelTimes-FatherRetirement-2016>{{cite news|last1=Skinner|first1=Susan Maxwell|title=Real Care Says Goodbye|url=http://www.carmichaeltimes.com/back-issues/pdf_files/volume_36_pdfs/Times%2001-22-16.pdf%7Caccessdate=15 March 2016|work=Carmichael Times|issue=Volume 36, Issue 04|date=22 January 2016
• Source #1 makes no mention of the subject of this article.
• Source #2 mentions a doctor named Meyer who had a daughters named Julie and Melanie. There is no corroboration that that Julie Meyer is the subject of this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've also removed this content:

• She co-founded the networking forum, First Tuesday.ref name=Marketing-YFirstTuesday-2000>Nottage, Amanda (21 July 2000). "YFirst Tuesday sold for £33.5 million ($50m)". Marketing. Retrieved 15 March 2016.
  • Julie Meyer is not mentioned in the source and references some other person as the co-founder. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) I've replaced the content in the lead using a reliable source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 09:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed: The source makes no mention of the subject of this article see WP:COATRACK

• and sold it in July 2000, to Yazam, a subsidiary of Jerusalem Global. ref name=Globes-YazamFirstTues-2000>"Yazam Acquires First Tuesday". Globes. 25 July 2000. Retrieved 15 March 2016.

General comment

• I'm still working my way through the article. What I'm noticing is that several sources are written by Julie Meyer. Several other sources are bios that appear at her alma mater, prior/current companies or generic bios at business websites. What I'm hoping to find are some articles where JM is the featured subject.
• I'm going through each source to make sure it is accurately represented in the article and cutting a little promotional tone here and there. Once that is done I'll look for additional sources to expand the article if possible.
• I'm also going to rework the Awards section and merge it into the career section per WP:MOS which says not to make dedicated awards sections as they create undue weight and skew POV.

Comments, collaboration and assistance are welcomed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My comment is to keep at it. With expert self-promoters like these it's really important to look at the sources forensically to find the real person beneath their own hype. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and encouragement.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I am really quite frankly 100% disgusted deeply disappointed at what you've done to the article. It's a shell of what it was -- and there was good solid content that was not correctly presented or parse -- but you went ahead Keithbob and basically 300 lb. Gorilla'd all over the content and page. I can't believe how disruptive your editing style is. I will be very glad to not run into you on any of the pages I edit.

Beside the fact that quite frankly, I was willing to clean up the entry but you did not allow any room or space for that. And really, given this is Women's History Month and I am a woman editor, I think you should have stepped off -- or at least leaned back a bit -- to allow someone who has an identification and skillset with this topic. Instead of just barrelling your way through and doing your best to strip content from the existing article. Not defending the article. And I don't know the subject at all. But really this whole experience was just textbook what not to do, why Wikipedia can be nightmarish to edit. Thanks for nothing. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Erika, when an article is [pared back/gutted*]*delete as applicable like this then it can be a shock, but the former version was a battleground of hagiography and critiques. Working to expand this article based on reliable sources (not tabloids) - taking leads from some of the content in the history, which is still there to view - will result in a more tightly written, sober, and ultimately more useful article than we had before. This is the starting point for re-expanding, not the end. Fences&Windows 23:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fences and windows -- This is not my first rodeo. I understand how to clean up articles and have done this for other entries. My concern here was the methodology and attitude taken. There was no room to collaborate or assist in an way. The effect of the aggressive editing drove me off the page. A page on which I believe as a woman and as someone with a background in investment banking I would have been able to add significant content. And I would have taken a different approach than this. It needed to be reworked without completely denuding the article. This seems very backwards and unnecessary. But mostly I object to being pushed off the article editing process. It was typical of problems I've seen on other pages, is a consistent problem on Wikipedia. And needs to be addressed from a constructive standpoint. People need to work better with others. I stated this on the Facebook thread and I have stated this repeatedly here. Ironic. Unnecessarily aggressive and exclusionary. Just plain wrong. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Also want to add that Wikipedia does a really crap job with finance and finance profiles. It's something that you need to have some idea of the industry to parse out what most Wikipedia editors hastily categorize as promotional. This was not promotional from the finance perspective -- it was pretty typical. It just needed to be reworked -- and I think not even that much. Again, I wasn't given the chance to make these changes but maybe think about that some time going forward, if someone actually knows the industry and has something to contribute, maybe back off and let them help and be part of the process. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry this hasn't been a good experience. I've seen articles I wrote on companies based entirely on RSs tagged as adverts or COI when they were nothing of the kind, so I understand where you're coming from. I hope Keithbob will take a step back now and that you will add back in the financial details. We do need expert input. Fences&Windows 00:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on hundreds of BLP's over the past seven years. I'm a known person at the BLP noticeboard. I also have a background in finance and investments. Furthermore, I am not the only editor who has removed content as a first step to improving the article. I've opened several threads on this talk page to invite discussion and collaboration but there has been little participation except to encourage my work. Per WP:TALK the talk page is for discussion of content not for making personal attacks on editors who are making good faith attempts to improve an article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh sure, Keithbob, take what I was saying personally and make this about a personal attack -- which it was in NO way shape or form. You did NOT act in a cooperative way and there were other options here that didn't have to have the outcome of driving an editor off the page. If you don't see that it's your problem, not mine. I tried and failed to participate. You win. Enjoy that. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss content OK? Please?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well you've gone ahead and deleted most of the content so not sure what there is to discuss. Why would I add to this page when you aren't working in a kind or collaborative manner? Why would anyone? You have left zero space for others to update or add to the page. So not quite sure what the way forward is here beyond letting you know that I was unhappy with the situation and that there were other options -- which were not chosen. You seem to waffle back and forth here quite conveniently between focusing on content and lobbing Wiki rulez at me. I could've contributed -- and tried to contribute -- content. You have zero clue as to what the results or problems of your edit behavior were. So again good luck editing an article that I would have been happy to edit. Great job, again. Hope I never run across you when I edit things. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to take the talk page discussion away from personal criticism and get back to matters of content. Can an admin please help with this? Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see that no admin has responded sooner; I see that since the request was made Erika has made over 60 consecutive edits to this bio, without any reversions or changes by anyone else, so the request is by now somewhat stale. I have noted that this bio has received media attention and there has been a lawsuit filed around the editing of it. With the disclaimer that I'm not really paid enough to get involved in something this sensitive, and I have just touched the surface of the background on this, upon a quick glance at the current version it appears to me that Erika is doing a great job with it. I also note that the recent media reports imply there is an article about Ariadne Capital, but as far as I see we have never had an article specifically about that firm. Also, per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, asking for help on this page is exactly the right thing for paid editors to do, by my understanding. I wouldn't get too concerned over "negative publicity" – there's a guy running for president of the U.S. who can't get too much of it, and it mostly seems to help his campaign. Though drumming up publicity via editing of Wikipedia is an unconventional way to get publicity. Hope this all works out. If there are any specific and unresolved concerns, please ping me with those and I'll see if I can help. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent unfavorable press

At some point it may be appropriate to include some points from more recent press that has mentioned JM. I don't think this article should be about the company but if there are notable actions by JM herself than it may be appropriate to include them. What do others think?

• UK Business Insider
• Bloomberg Business
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Meyer in the context of various Ariadne lawsuits:

• Evening Standard -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - see https://www.shareprophets.com/views/34351/explosive-linkedin-censors-john-galt-but-i-publish-julie-meyer-a-history-of-scandal-and-lawsuits-metootech — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.193.120 (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources

As I mentioned earlier several of the existing sources in the article were written by the subject and several other sources are bios that appear at her alma mater, prior/current companies etc. so we want to be careful that the article is not based on primary sources as that would be a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Therefore I've been looking for secondary sources not already used in the article. I found an article from Forbes which I've added to the BLP and I've listed some recent press above. Other that I'm only able to find news articles where she is quoted as CEO of her company but do not give any biographical info ie Reuters. No additional biographical information. I did find a couple of interviews with JM which I've listed in the External Links section. If anyone comes across additional secondary sources please add to the article or list them here for others to use. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I've found a few more secondary sources and have added them to the article. Hopefully we can keep expanding. At some point I feel we also need to include the recent events and criticism which I've listed above without giving undue weight.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional work on article

I have decided to make further attempts to rework this article. Please be patient as I am trying to add as much well-sourced content as possible. I hope to finish this work as soon as possible. I have no formal connection with the subject but I would like to make the entry better and establish her notability and contributions more clearly, as I don't believe any of the drafts so far have reflected her career. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Meyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313012219/http://indyeagleeye.livejournal.com/49001.html to http://indyeagleeye.livejournal.com/49001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Meyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160421180515/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/24/julie-meyer-wired-2011 to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-11/24/julie-meyer-wired-2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Meyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160317233844/http://www.delmeyer.net/AboutDrMeyer/Profile.aspx to http://www.delmeyer.net/AboutDrMeyer/Profile.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412023141/https://www.womenetics.com/Article/ArtMID/2681/ArticleID/2304/julie-meyer-an-american-entrepreneur-in-london to https://www.womenetics.com/Article/ArtMID/2681/ArticleID/2304/julie-meyer-an-american-entrepreneur-in-london

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup to comply with Wikipedia regulations

Hi all,

I noticed that there was some unsourced or improperly sourced information (one sentence, for example, only linked to Google search results), as well as some non-encyclopedic content (someone's opinion on the UK justice system). I wasn't sure if linking to a taken down YouTube video was an adequate source, so I marked it citation needed and would welcome anybody's insight on that!

--TertiusGaudens (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Suggest adding the date of book publication to end of the following sentence, changing:

"Julie Marie Meyer MBE (born August 28, 1966)[1] is an American businesswoman and the author of Welcome to Entrepreneur Country."

To:

"Julie Marie Meyer MBE (born August 28, 1966)[1] is an American businesswoman and the author of Welcome to Entrepreneur Country, published May 17, 2012."

Please note: I would like to disclose that I am working for a marketing firm named GeletkaPlus (https://geletkaplus.com) who is being contracted by the subject of this Wikipedia entry. Because there is a financial connection and I am being paid to make suggested changes, I am avoiding edits directly myself, and am rather sharing suggested adjustments for editors to consider. I understand past concerns have been raised on this page around edits to content and would like to ensure that all Wikipedia policies are being carefully considered as I engage.

GeletkaPlus (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi GeletkaPlus. I'm not sure why adding the publication date is necessary, so I am declining this edit request. The lead paragraphs are supposed to summarize the article's content, whereas the publication date is more of a granular detail. But if you strongly disagree, feel free to seek a second opinion by filing another edit request. Best, Altamel (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Arrest warrant

On 24th February 2022, The Times newspaper reported that an arrest warrant had been issued in the name of Julie Meyer for failing to turn up to an earlier hearing on 14th February 2022.

Mr Justice Kerr said that Meyer needed to be taught that “the court is not to be trifled with”.

He added: “A sentence of imprisonment is appropriate and necessary because the breach is deliberate, cynical and continuing and because, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied there is every prospect that the defendant will continue to flout orders of the court unless coerced into obeying them.”

The judge said Meyer was a “selfish and untrustworthy person, her word counts for nothing if it suits her to break it, she shows indifference to the respect properly due to the court and to the financial and resource burdens to which she continues to subject the claimant and the court”. 31.31.55.23 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)