Talk:Ken Robinson (educationalist)

Sir?

Usually, even if someone's a Sir, the article isn't titled "Sir ...", but rather (as an example of what I think would be a good title for this one) "Ken Robinson (something)" (something == author, whatever) or "Ken middlename Robinson", with his "Sir" status only stated at the start of the article—check Elton John, Paul McCartney, Alex Ferguson. —Rotring 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Development in Creativity, Innovation"?

At first glance, this sounds fundamentally confused. Can you be a leader in, e.g., perseverance, talkativeness? I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here but I'm having trouble.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"External Links"

I hope this ok? I'm adding a couple of good video lectures that I found of Ken Robinson which I think will give a better sense of his involvement in education. (Intelligentelf (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

make less like a cv

To make the article less like a CV / resume in tone, I move to take out the 'Advisory roles' section and change the voice to a more objective register. Any objections or comments on an overhaul? Spanglej (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Disability

any info about his disability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.80.248 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to IMDb, but which one (or both?)

I wanted to add a link to Ken's IMDb page, but there seem to be at least two:

• Ken Robinson (XIV) at IMDb - often "as Sir Ken Robinson Ph.D."
• Sir Ken Robinson at IMDb

So, while IMDb doesn't have their act together, do we link to both? Neither? I don't know enough about Ken's appearances on TV and in film to comment on the correctness or completeness of either entry. I just recognize that they both seem to be about the same guy, not two different people with the same name. That's actually why I'm here, looking for answers. 24.57.239.43 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is not a WP:Reliable source, as the content is written by the online users and is unverifiable. So it shouldn't be added as either a citation or an external link. See WP:RS/IMDB. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Ken Robinson has been accused of lying by some educators, claiming that Ritalin is an anesthetic (not a stimulant), among other things. Narwhallrus (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

False While "some educators" (whoever they may be) can make they the accusation, nowhere does says that Ritalin is a anesthetic. The use of Ritalin in medicating young children does come up as part his larger theme of re-working the standard "cookie-cutter" approach that fails to actually educate students much anymore. Rather than developing the natural skills and talents, he says, the system seems to prefer giving a drug to make them sit in the chairs and get with the program.This is not legitimate criticism, because it accuses him of something he doesn't actually believe. Thus, should not be included in the article.
Senator2029 (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is conspicuously lacking in critical references. I've added a couple and will try to locate others.Jprw (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Two of those references are from blogs - it doesn't contribute anything just to have critical references for the sake of having them unless they are from actual researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.88.195 (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would essentially agree with the above commenter, and am unsure whether those two criticisms from bloggers are worth keeping. It's definitely better to have ones from actual researchers or at least articles in newspapers rather than just blog posts. I'm just not sure whether to delete those blog posts at the moment when there's not much else to take their place, they do provide a fair counterpoint, and they aren't entirely inappropriate sources as they do seem to (based on their writings and their about pages) have relevant knowledge and experience and know what they're talking about (though it's still certainly better to have a more reliable source than that). But if someone else wants to delete them, I'd say that's totally reasonable; they aren't really needed.

However, I have added a paragraph outlining criticism from a cognitive psychology professor, sourced to an article he wrote in a reputable newspaper. I do think it's quite important to present criticism that is from reliable, reputable, relevant sources, particularly academic experts, on a topic like this, as Robinson does make grand, misleading, vague, and inaccurate statements, such as on ADHD and learning styles. Having some information about what academics who are actually experts in relevant fields have said about Robinson and these inaccuracies would make this article more complete and informative, in my view.

I also feel more comfortable with either or both of those criticisms from bloggers being removed from here now that there is more criticism from a relevant expert, and would feel more comfortable still if further (maybe just a couple more) expert opinions were brought in here as well. But those criticisms from bloggers can be removed already if someone wishes. BreakfastJr (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As of today, there is no criticism of Robinson's ideas. I think that is a bit more concerning than having bad sources.

Lenkense (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ken Robinson (educationalist). 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/20101204004045/http://www.imno.org/articles.asp?qid=283&sid=3 to http://www.imno.org/articles.asp?qid=283&sid=3

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) 11:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ideas on Education

Only one of the statements under "Ideas on Education" is referenced. References would bring more credibility to this paragraph. CMartin610 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

reverts

Ihave reverted the edits of an ip editor who has beenrestoingpuffery under the irrelevant excuse of "removing undsourced material". The edits reverted did not add unsourcedmaterial. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)