Talk:Robert Winston, Baron Winston/Archive 1

Archive 1

Correct title: linked website

"Lord Robert Winston" is wrong (only sons of a Duke or Marquess are addressed like that). I was going to change the text annotating the link, but I visited the site and it does say "Professor Lord Robert Winston". Since I'm sure it was created by PR people and not him, I might contact them to point it out. Perhaps the link should have (sic.) after it? --JRawle 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Whenever I hear him referred to, it is as Lord Winston, Professor Winston or Professor the Lord Winston.--Zhengfu 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

...or Professor Robert Winston. All of those are correct. Just never "Lord Robert..." --JRawle 11:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Story of God

I think a separate article should be created about this documentary in the same fashion as Richard Dawkins' The root of all evil?. It was a very impressive series and especially in the last episode Winston explores Creationism. He even interviews Dawkins in the episode. Seriously, Wikipedia could benefit from having a separate article about this.

Write one then mate 164.143.240.34 14:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Should it be Mentioned He's an Internationalist?

Robert Winston constantly espouses racial dilution subjects in his documentaries. Sexual couples are represented usually with interracial relationships. Definitely an established pattern. TheLookOutOne 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Published over 300 scientific papers?

The math just doesn't work out on this, aside from the fact that the statement (as of Oct 2008) is unsourced. Using rough numbers: 40 year career is 14600 days. What is "over 300"? Let's use 325 as the number of "scientific papers" he has supposedly published in "peer-reviewed" journals. 14600 / 325 = 45 (rounded). This means that in addition to... -being married, -having three children at home, -playing (practicing) two different musical instruments, -skiing, -being a television presenter on at least 15 different shows, -being a Council member of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund -being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts -being a Member of The Athenaeum Club in London -being a Professor of Science and Society, Imperial College London -being a Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University -being a Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies, Imperial College London -being a Past Director of NHS Research and Development, Hammersmith Hospitals Trust -being a Chairman, Royal College of Music Council -being a member of the House of Lords -being a Board member and Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. -being a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (FMedSci) -being a Honorary Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering (HonFREng) -being a Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (FRCOG) -being a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London (FRCP) -being a Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons (FRCS Edin) -being a Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (FRCPS Glasg) -being a Honorary Fellow of the Instititute of Biology (FIBiol) -being a Member of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council... AND wrote at least 18 different books...

...and many other activities, he somehow managed to Research, Become an expert, and then write a different "scientific paper" every 45 days, no weekends off? Not likely. This claim either needs to be refined, clarified, or deleted. If the claim is taken verbatum from a 'reliable source' then it can stay (no matter how incorrect I may think it is). But with no 'reliable source' making this claim then it must be corrected or deleted. -- Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.204.188 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See the list here [1]. It may seem strange for anyone coming from outside academic research, but when we say someone has published so many papers, that doesn't mean they sat down and penned every word. There will usually be several authors of each paper. They may have contributed to the manuscript, or they may have played a part in the research being written up. The more renowned an academic, the more people want to collaborate with him or her, so the number of papers is a good measure of a researcher's reputation even if they didn't actually sit down and write all the papers themself. The article is accurate as it stands. JRawle (Talk) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Animal testing

I can't see any mention of the words "animal testing" or even "animal" in the article, so the inclusion of this category is confusing.

Author

Lord Winston is also an author of a number of books, and at least for me, this was one of the major ways in which he gained credibility. I have seen him present on a few occassions which then turned me to look for his TV series and books. It was his authorship which allowed me to discover the depth of his intellect and range of his views providing real credibility that I could experience for myself. The page seems to make a very bare and understated statement or two about his authorship of books. At least in my experience this is well understated and should be worthy of a seperate section. Markdnicholls (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem

(Redacted)

I assume you mean Lord Winston's fears over poor English of foreign nurses. The article does not support your assertion. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing privileges at WP do not extend to blanking pages, as you did here. You are likely to get yourself blocked if you carry on like that. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The blanking was an error, for which i apologise. Indiscriminate removal of valid comments and threatening blocking is severely oppositional to the WP ethos.Pawelmichal (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see you haven't been welcomed, so I will fix that. The welcome notice (at the top of your talk page) contains several useful links that will help you edit Wikipedia. I suggest you explore the link to the 'five pillars'. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing/bias

There are clearly issues with sourcing, eg the number of academic articles. Additionally, there is a very strong presumption in favour of self-editing in some of the content. As has been previously discussed, none of Prof. Winston's controversies [eg rights of male sperm donors, East European nurses] are mentioned. WP:BLP are meant to be objective. Any further editing that displays bias, should be treated as being by persons in the subjects employ, and treated as vandalism. 86.12.129.12 (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Placing inaccurate maintenance tags on the article is vandalism. If you really wish to improve the article please put in proper references and do not remove sourced material. Vrenator ^talk 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite; there is no evidence of autobiographical editing. If there are notable controversies missing then the way forward is to add them, backed up by the appropriate reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bothe User:Vrenator and User:TerriersFan are wrong. The article has clear autobiographical elements. Any concerned contributor will doubtless both source and add them. As a matter of fact, 'Robert Winston Syndrome' has become shorthand for self-editing of online sources. It's good to note, however, that the official warnings have had effect, and that Professor Winston has ceased his racist attacks on East European NHS staff. 193.63.210.2 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1