# Talk:Jamie Beaton

Hello, there are a few issues with this article that I think are worth raising to obtain consensus on:
(1) the article frequently refers to Beaton's Crimson Education as having obtained a "valuation" of certain figures. I think its important that we qualify that these valuations are occurring in the context of Venture Capital funding rounds; these aren't necessarily whole-of-business valuations being made for the purpose of an acquisition. The importance of this is: just because Tiger Management happens to think that 10% of a business is worth $100M, that doesn't mean the business is going to be valued at $100M to the wider market.
Adding the qualifier 'post-money valuation' flags this issue to the reader and avoids misleading them.
(2) Beaton's stake in the business as of 2022 is unclear. I think its worth including a sentence that his present stake in the business is unknown; although his stake in 2016 was around half.
(3) Alot of the attention upon Beaton (especially the media attention) focuses on his numerous amount of credentials from elite universities. I think this is part of what is driving his media interest, the coverage, and hence his notability. I think its worth including a paragraph in the opening to reflect this, reading: "Beaton has received media attention for obtaining an remarkably large number of credentials from various elite international universities. He has obtained degrees from Harvard, Stanford, Tsinghua, a PhD from Oxford, and is studying law at Yale."
What do we think?
Jack4576 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: I agree with you that (1) could be clearer in a couple of places. How about "In 2016, the enterprise was valued by investors at over NZ$75 million"? It's already clear that the US$550 million valuation is based on venture capital, I think.
(2) doesn't seem needed to me as long as it's clear that it was only as of 2016 that his stake was known to be around half, which I think is currently the case. (3), I'm neutral on but would delete "remarkably"; that it's a large number is enough. Others may have different views on all of this, of course. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
For (1) I’d prefer: “In 2016, the enterprise was given a post-money-valuation by some investors at over NZ$75 million” Jack4576 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jack4576: Hmm, I'm not keen on the phrase "post-money valuation" as it seems like quite a technical term (I've never heard it before). Is there an alternative way of phrasing this? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
It is a technical term indeed… it’s the precise term for the type of valuation that’s happening.
How about, “In 2016, some investors bought a stake in the business, which they valued at over NZ$75 million”
what do you think? Jack4576 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

(4) Beaton has a doctorate from Oxford, and so I think the article should start "Dr Jamie Beaton" rather than merely 'Jamie Beaton'.
(5) I think we should remove the sentence "According to Beaton, he then applied to 25 of the top universities in the world and received an offer from each", as he is not a RS for this claim. 
Thoughts? Jack4576 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: In relation to (4), MOS:PHD says "Academic or professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should only be used with the subject of a biography if that subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not)". Beaton is not widely known as "Dr Jamie Beaton", therefore he should not be referred to in the lead of the article in this way, although the article can of course mention his doctorate.
In relation to (5), my view is that the statement is fine as currently worded. It says "According to Beaton" which is correct. It is a claim that he has made (and that has been widely repeated by other sources). If the sentence just said "He applied to 25 top universities and received an offer from each", that would be a problem. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks User:Chocmilk03, appreciate your input Jack4576 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jack4576 and @MaxnaCarta: I thought I'd bring the discussion here given there seems to be some disagreement. I personally largely prefer the previous wording of the article, although the substance hasn't changed. In some ways there's not much to choose between them, but given the article has GA status I think making major changes to wording should be discussed on the talk page first, ideally. Some immediate comments:
(1) For the first sentence, I don't think anything was wrong with the previous version (Jamie Beaton is a New Zealand entrepreneur who founded an education mentoring enterprise, Crimson Education, at age 17) except that it didn't link to Crimson Education directly. It seems a bit far to say he is "primarily known" for this as this is arguably our interpretation of the sources (one could arguably say he's equally known for having obtained so many degrees). Crimson Education's role in his life is clear enough from it being the first thing mentioned about him and from the article. I also think it is over-linking to link the common word "company".
(2) The previous version read better to me because the company's valuation was given chronologically, i.e. starting with the lower valuation in 2016 then covering the higher valuation in 2022. I don't necessarily have an issue with giving the NZ$ valuation instead of US$ but it would be good to be consistent with the two valuations.
(3) It is not necessary to add sources to the lead where points are not controversial and covered adequately in the body of the article, see MOS:LEADCITE. It could perhaps be useful to include a citation for the 2022 valuation of the company given that this is quite impressive.
(4) I'm not necessarily opposed to mentioning his multiple degrees in the lead, but the use of the word "obtention" is quite unusual and reads awkwardly. I'm also slightly uncomfortable with the phrasing "elite international institutions" as it's a bit WP:PEACOCK-y.
Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies this is the first time I have ever tagged an admin. I do not get involved in content disputes. It's not what I am here for. While no editor owns an article and I understand Jack has a right to edit this, I created this article, I had it put through DYK, I did the work in getting it put through a GA nomination. Jack has taken it upon himself to remove the GA tag of his own accord, make edits I feel are inconsistent with policy, and now appears to be engaging in further inappropriate behaviour by persistently making edits he feels are better without discussing on the talk page despite the article having been reviewed. There is an unlimited amount of other work he could be doing, and yet he just keeps going back to his standard conduct of finding articles others are trying to work on, making an edit they disagree with, endlessly restoring his preferred version, and engaging in lengthy and verbose discussions that get nowhere. Please note that many people have edited articles I am the primary contributor to, and it has never before resulted in anything other than cooperation. In fact, I regularly seek peer review on work for improvement. I personally find it difficult to perceive Jack's contributions as constructive or positive. Any guidance is welcome. My preferred outcome is that Jack is asked to focus on something else, if possible. I simply do not want to work with him, as I believe it will not get anywhere. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
You rollbacked a series of edits, twice, without once bothering to engage in a talk page discussion.
If you ‘simply’ don’t want to work cooperatively with other editors, then that’s on you. I’m happy to engage constructively and reach consensus.
and your complaint that I removed the GA tag is silly. I was the one who immediately restored it upon realising my mistake. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up as an issue.
Jack4576 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, happy to follow consensus since it appears that multiple editors disagree with my drafting here. Jack4576 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, User:MaxnaCarta, I'm honored I guess! Jack4576, you weren't drafting in the article, you were editing it. If you are happy to follow consensus, then I think you wouldn't have a problem reverting your recent revert, and doing the drafting here or in a sandbox. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Rolling back a series of good faith and constructive edits, without any talk page engagement or explanation, isn’t a good way to go about rollbacking. Jack4576 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh and please don't link "company". Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I thought it was important for readers to understand the distinction between a private company, and public company here; but sure. Jack4576 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Chocmilk03 by “previous wording” , do you mean the one with my edits that Maxnacarta rolled back?
Or the wording prior to my edits? Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Jack, I am making a request. Please restore version 1214624369 and find something else to do other than focus on the minute details of this article. That's what I am asking. Then you can end this discussion and focus on improving the many dozens of articles you have created instead of worrying about this. I keep bringing up the removed GA status because, to me, it really demonstrates your spirit of conduct: supremely confident in doing whatever you feel is OK to an article in a breach of guidelines and etiquette without discussion (but expecting others to discuss before they revert your mistakes).
You then double down on finding other "errors" in an article that are, at most, ambiguous and usually just incorrect interpretations of guidelines. You have not seen me make a claim that Beaton flew to the moon and removed it; you are picking at straws.
I'd just prefer that you leave me and anything I am working on alone. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
How about, we simply clarify what the consensus is that has been reached here, and follow it.
Set your personal feelings aside please. I treat you like any other editor and I ask that you do the same. Jack4576 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jack4576: For clarity, I was referring to the previous version here, which is the same as version 1214624369 referred to by MaxnaCarta. I think best to roll back to that version and discuss anything more substantive on the talk page if necessary so we can see if consensus can be reached.
This is an article that's been peer reviewed as a Good Article, so I do think that the person seeking to make substantial changes to existing content should seek consensus on the talk page first. (Not always, for example I don't think that's the case for adding new information or correcting obvious mistakes or things like that, but definitely in this case.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Chocmilk03, happy to follow this consensus Jack4576 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)