Talk:Roy Meadow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Furor vs Furore 2 statistics 3 Aftermath 4 Sir Roy

[edit] Furor vs Furore

I changed this back to Furore from a different IP address yesterday and appended a comment that Furor was not a word in English. However, searching through various dictionaries (including Wiktionary) finds that it is - its just that I personally as an English person have never ever come across it spelt without the final "e". I am now confused...

148.177.129.212 10:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material about the Clark case mentioned should be moved over to the page on the Clark case. The tone is also inappropriately POV in places and distinctly non-encyclopaedic! Blaise 08:33, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

[edit] statistics

73,000,000-1 what an ameauturish idiot -and the legal professionals for their unquestioning acceptance. -tali 28/01/06

This is not really helpful in editing the article. Lots of people have issues with Sir Roy's statistics. But as an expert he could well have been summarising medical research and used this as an example. Avoid knee-jerk judgement please. JFW | T@lk 03:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tali's comment may be a little opinionated, but that's what the discussion section is (partly) for! Besides, we're dealing here with a quack who's wantonly destroyed dozens (if not hundreds) of lives, so it's understandable that one tends to view him as closer to Harold Shipman, than any kind of "good" doctor!

In the 2003 Sally Clark appeal court hearing the statistical evidence was not fully argued. The judges did state though "if this matter had been fully argued before us we would, in all probability, have considered that the statistical evidence provided a quite distinct basis upon which the appeal had to be allowed." [[1]]They also stated that if the evidence that cot death didn't run in families was accepted it totally invalidated programmes such as CONI (Care Of next Infant) which aimed to reduce second cot deaths in families. Through his work with the Royal College of Paediatricians Sir Roy had been involed with setting this up.

Someone please tell me what "struck off" means in the first section. I have an idea from the context, but we Yanks are not always so keen on the British argot. Thanks. 64.178.101.32 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

See struck off. Like disbarment, but for doctors. -- Avenue 09:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very negative and biased overview of Professor Sir Roy Meadow's career and each time I try to amend it so that it reads more favourably and fairly, I am unable to do so and have been accused of "vandalism" for my efforts in highlighting these inconsistencies. Elizabeth Marsh 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

I can't find the phrase "travesty of justice" anywhere in the official transcript of Lord Justice Judge's remarks in [[2004] EWCA Crim 1] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2004/1.html

NotSaussure 13:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Roy

An anon, 86.4.29.226 has been trying to change "Sir Roy Meadow" to "Mr Roy Meadow". He/she is also introducing typos, like "Meadows's", and "Meadows" and "meadow's".

Would the anon please state here what the problem is with "Sir Roy". If it's a Manual of Style issue, and if there's some policy that we don't use titles such as "Sir", that's fine. I don't claim to know all Wikipedia policies, but I'd like a link. However, since the anon is not just removing the "Sir", but is actively changing it to "Mr", I think it's unlikely to be a question of style.

This BBC article about him begins with "Professor Sir Roy Meadow", and refers to him as "Sir Roy" thereafter. See also here and here. I see no reason to doubt that he is "Sir". If there's some reason to remove the title, I think it should be discussed here. ElinorD (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not the anon! To me, the Manual of Style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Subsequent_uses_of_names suggests that, after the first naming, he should be referred to as "Sir Roy" or "Meadow" but not "Mr Roy Meadow" or "Professor Meadow". I prefer "Meadow". I would not change from "Sir Roy" if it were being used consistently, but it is not. Thincat 10:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Meadow", although the BBC article refers to him as "Sir Roy" after the first mention, and I like that. I did have a problem with the systematic changing of "Sir" to "Mr". ElinorD (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed "Professor Meadow" to "Meadow" (in accordance with Manual of Style) and "Sir Roy" to "Meadow". In the latter case the MoS does not seem to be definitive but I think consistency is desirable. For guidance I looked at Michael Woodruff (a recently featured article) that uses the surname, and David Attenborough (everyone's favourite knight) which is almost entirely surname although "Sir David" appears twice. What is good enough for them should be more than good enough for Meadow. Thincat 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)