Jump to content

Talk:Nick Robinson (journalist)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial

This page is currently being targeted by vandals. See http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8212152&postID=115351072274977152&isPopup=true

and read the 14th comment by "thomas fuller".

--EddieBernard 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If it looks like they're following through from that suggestion, or are the same people, serve them a {{subst:bv}} or even a {{subst:test4im}} (mostly only if it seems like it's the same person at a different IP) for sure. I doubt that comment will garner a great response, though. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


Bush

Bush bashed Robinson:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003619296

--Sonjaaa 05:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Is 'he is known for his glasses and slaphead' appropriate language for an Encyclopaedia? This is probably vandalism but you can never be too sure, I'm not really a regular enough user to delete it so i'll just reccommened deletion. James Benton - 11/5/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.160.30 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

Deadflagblues is blanking text and references in support of that text and this is something that I will throw open for discussion on this Talk page. The text being blanked is as follows:-

Critics of Robinson have nicknamed him "Toenails" and he is frequently referred to as such on the internet (for example on political websites such as politicalbetting, Guido Fawkes, the Spectator Coffee House)[1] [2]. This is said to have originated from within the BBC: "Nick Robinson is now known by the nickname “Toenails” here at the Beeb because he’s so far up Brown’s [derriere] that that’s all you can see of him.” comment #407
After two blanks, Deadflagblues and I tried to reach agreement on our talkpages. I said:
"Please do not start an "edit war" through revision comments. Please start a discussion on the Talk page. Also, although I agree that improving references is a good thing, it is not the Wikipedia way to remove substantive content while references are being improved. Please would you therefore restore the content and add, if you like, a "citation needed" template so that work of improvement can be done, rather than simple deletion. Thank you. Chelseaboy (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"
He said: "Please refrain from adding biased text that lacks legitimate reference, and contravenes wikipedia's guidelines. A "citation needed" template was unneeded, as there was BLP sources template in place, until you deleted it (without discussion) in your last edit. The text in question was not substantive content and references were not being improved - you have simply reinstated the previous 'references', which, as already mentioned, violate wikipedia rules. Deadflagblues (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)"
I now suggest that we retain the fact about the nickname and provide better references for it, which is easily done by following the links in the previous edits. Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Having had a quick look through the previous edits, almost all of the alleged nickname results seem to stem from the same anonymous blog comment, or similarly politically biased blogs. If there are any actual legitimate references out there, please add them. It's probably worth keeping in mind that adding these kind of poorly sourced and pretty serious accusations against a journalist is a fairly big deal, and might be bordering on libelous. Deadflagblues (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this constructive comment. Why don't you have a go yourself, and we will see where we get to. On your comment, "similarly politically biassed blogs" is probably not a proper basis for excluding, for example, the Coffee House blog, which is the official blog of the well respected Spectator magazine, or politicalbetting which is a non-partisan political comment blog run by the journalist and radio and TV politics pundit Mike Smithson. It is also probably right to say that few if any topics on political matters (and Nick Robinson is a political correspondent) can sensibly be discussed if "politically biassed" sources are excluded. Neutral point of view does not exclude points of view when points of view are the subject matter. Balance requires more, not less, information in most cases. Good luck! Chelseaboy (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Having had no response, I re-wrote the section myself with new references, but this has been blanked without engagement in the discussion here, or any improvement, as opposed to blanking, being put forward. Hoping we can do better here, guys. Perhaps another editor could take a look? Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (A dispute over whether to include the living person's nickname in his biography, with sources.):
All sources supplied to date have been blog or forum entries. The argument that some of these are "official" blogs is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for "good quality sources" as per the guidance of WP:BLP. Having tested the searches using Google News for on-line reliable sources and LexisNexis for printed sources, I can find no evidence to support the inclusion of this nickname that would satisfy the BLP guidance.—Teahot (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Chelseaboy (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Newsround interview

On Thursday 15th April 2010 Nick Robinson spoke about the relevance of politics to Newsround viewers. Ricky Boleto also asked Nick about his time working on Newsround.

Ricky: "You onced worked for Newsround. And now you are the big chief political editor of BBC News. What's better?"

Nick: (laughs) "Of course, Newsround."

Ricky: "I thought you might say that."

Nick: "I got to interview the Blue Peter tortoise in the Blue Peter garden. And that is much better than interviewing prime ministers and presidents." Damson88 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I'm removing this until it is correctly cited. It's already been referenced on a couple of sites (including his BBC blog):

In the ongoing aftermath Robinson has received criticism for showing bias towards a Con-Lib coalition, against the BBC political coverage policy of impartiality.[citation needed]

Kayman1uk (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alastair Campbell brought up his history of conservative affiliations when confronted with a difficult question.[7]

What’s a ‘difficult’ question?

Personal information

Information such as details about his family or where he lives must be supported by good quality sources in accordance with WP:BLP. Any such information that is poorly sourced or unsourced may be removed without discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored this section with a reliable source. Aiken ♫ 12:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sign smashing incident

A controversies section should be created to include the recent sign smashing incident.. or should this go into the career section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.73.67 (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Aiken (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bronchial carcinoid tumour

News was out recently that he's got some sort of throat/respiratory cancer. Does he, did he, smoke? (that can often cause it)Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's obviously a Tory supporter. But my heart goes out to him with his ongoing voice problems. I pray he gets back to normal quickly92.31.90.226 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section appears overly long and goes beyond the sources cited. Is anyone opposed to shortening it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightened editor (talk • contribs) 21:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

He's not even biased at all. (2.103.233.173 (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC))
I think the above comment might be reflecting that Enlightened editor has already made some recent edits [3] [4] that have already shortened this section considerably. In the lead for the article, Robinson's approach is a described as confrontational and provocative, hence it might be expected that some controversy and criticism might follow. Currently the section includes a few general observations and also brief coverage of 4 discrete incidents that have themselves generated press coverage, hence are referenced. I'm not clear what is being suggesting for removal, or why? Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Drchriswilliams is correct in that the comment refers to edits that I have now made. Enlightened editor (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I had overlooked the date of the original post here. It would seems that the planned shortening has already occurred. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I've just shortened the bit about Britain First (I note someone already had once before, and the longer edits were both anonymous.) Perhaps the whole Salmond bit should be moved to Scottish_independence_referendum,_2014? William T (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree the whole Salmond bit is way too long given its (relatively fleeting) importance so I've just shortened it without (I hope) losing the gist Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Robinson is described as controversial and provocative - what does this even mean? It is too vague. Controversial in what sense; this could mean anything? How is he provocative? Some of his interviews with political figures border on the obsequious (see YouTube). Clearly he is not always provocative. I wonder if the person who chose those words meant something like "Robinson has a strong and engaging personality, and this has garnered him both fans and critics with strong opinions about him". What I think would be more interesting would be his comments on his colleagues while he was recovering from his thyroid operation. There were some reports about him criticising them for being biased against a left-wing politician (Sturgeon or Corbyn perhaps?). This incident might also provide some more balance to the criticisms of him, because it reveals himself rarely reflecting on himself/his profession. 92.29.33.80 (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Robinson is not described in the article as "controversial": the word doesn't appear. He is described as "provocative" in the lead section and later, where there are concrete examples of his being deliberately provocative (e.g. the Tony Blair event in the Return to the BBC Section). "Provocative" is not an editor's opinion, it is based on events cited from reliable sources. If there is a reliable source that provides material relating to the incident you suggest, then you could make an edit (or cite the material here and ask someone to make an edit). I hope this helps; if you're not already familiar with them, then you might find helpful WP:RS and other policies it links to. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nick Robinson. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hang Nelson Mandela

There seem to be a few articles mentioning Nick Robinson and his views on Nelson Mandela and Apartheid in the 1980s and 1990s. Can someone find some public domain information on this from 30 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.138 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nick Robinson. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Robinson_(journalist)/Archive_1&oldid=1094711619"