Talk:Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham

Request
Request for additional information about how he has changed the NHS or his role with changing the NHS. Please expand this article if you can about this. C. Williams (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reaction to NHS review
I have reverted two edits by User:Dutch77. The additions were biased and poorly sourced to my mind, and further removed two of the sources I added, without explanation. Both were from Spiked, one an editorial and the other by a practicising doctor; both have been extensively cited elsewhere on the web.

By contrast, the additions by Dutch77 included one source from Robina Shah. The article calls Miss Shah "the chair of Stockport foundation trust and the NHS Confederation council member for the North West region." In other words, she'd be biting the hand that feed to criticise Darzi's review, and indeed her 'article' reads like Darzi or some apparatchik wrote it themselves, as illustrated not just by the gushing praise it contains, but by the language of spin which make up the subheadings - "Outcome focused" and "Going strong" - and the article itself - "The NHS will deliver...quality-driven integrated health and social care service". This is the same language Darzi was criticised for in one of the two articles removed. In short, it's a clumsy puff-piece without substance written by someone who works administering the NHS.

The other quotes were uncited, but Prof Gilmore is pretty clearly expressing concern even as cited - "now we need to make sure they are fully involved in implementing the plans locally and nationally". The BMA are disclaimed with the POV "traditionally resistant to Government change" (why the capitalisation of government, I wonder?), and to say Meldrum was quoted selectively would be the understatement of the century. His full speech notes that he suspects 'polyclinics' would be engraved on Darzi's heart, and from his fifth sentence on Darzi launches into the "two major problems" with the report.

If you look at the BBC article these quotes have been lifted from, not a single author is wholeheartedly endorsing the report and every one expresses significant reservations that Dutch77's edits completely ignored. That makes me seriously question his/her motives. Nmg20 (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My general feeling is that the reception of the report has been generally positive - possibly largely due the lack of much specific in the report itself. I am not sure we are at complete balance here yet. I also wonder whether the review needs to be removed from the biography and become a separate article in itself.

Gjamie (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it may do, Gjamie. I should have said in the last post that I have no objection whatever to those quotes being cited appropriately: there certainly has been praise for aspects of the review, but I've yet to see any unqualified by one or more of concerns over Darzi's suitability for the role, his independence from the government, and/or his apparent penchant for taking steps towards part-privatisation of the NHS. Every respectable commentator I've seen has observed that he provides no details of how the aims he sets out are to be achieved, either. However... Nmg20 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of article and form of address
This article has been moved to 'Ara Darzi'


 * 1) because his form of address is "Professor the Lord Darzi of Denham KBE", not the one used in the old article title
 * 2) it may well change in the future
 * 3) in order to comply with Wikipedia's naming convention.

Millstream3 (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't use forms of address as article titles, as you'd know if you'd read the "naming convention" you refer to. The old title was correct. Please familiarise yourself with the conventions before citing them. Proteus (Talk) 09:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Plus wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Proteus, can you move it back to the correct title? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit weird to call the article "Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham", when it would be incorrect to call him that? It should be "Ara Darzi"; "Baron Darzi of Denham" or "Professor the Lord Darzi of Denham KBE"; or even "Ara Darzi (Baron Darzi of Denham)".  Take your pick, but the current article title "Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham" is wrong.  I'm not going to labour the point, but the title is misleading.  The first line of the article should read "Professor the Lord Darzi of Denham KBE" as we are now talking about the person.  Millstream3 (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * May I suggest adding an infobox to the article? This is the usual place to add the form of address someone uses, e.g. Professor the Lord Darzi of Denham. The opening of the article has to have his full name (I've added) and title in the standard Wikipedia format.  J Rawle  (Talk) 10:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, "Professor" (as a style emanating from a university) should not be used with styles emanating from the Crown, and so both "Professor Sir Ara Darzi" and "Professor The Lord Darzi of Denham" are incorrect. He was "Professor Ara Darzi", then "Sir Ara Darzi", and now "The Rt Hon. The Lord Darzi of Denham". Proteus (Talk) 12:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interested to know why that is or where that is authoritatively documented as "Professor the Lord..." is used by the House of Lords itself and "Professor Sir..." is common parlance. Admittedly, that doesn't make it right!  Google UK returns 250,000 hits for "Professor Sir". Millstream3 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting take on it, as Professor Sir and Professor Dame are widely used in academia. You'd never see "Dr Sir", but the title Professor is considered so important within universities that a knighted professor is usually addressed Professor Smith, not Sir John. As for peers, the style above is often used. However, it's usually Professor Robert Winston and Professor Martin Rees (that's how the latter's secretary refers to him).  J Rawle  (Talk) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not exactly a widely obeyed rule! Debrett's Correct Form says: "It is not customary in formal usage to combine the style emanating from other sources with titles conferred by the Sovereign. Alderman Sir William Brown and Professor Sir Edward Hailstorm are solecisms. In social usage this is not uncommon, though deprecated by purists." Proteus (Talk) 13:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the discussion about his naming (about Professor, Sir and Lord) and I'm not convinced that there was an agreement at all. There was only the suggestion by someone to use 'Professor Lord Darzi of Denham' in the infobox, but there wasn't a general agreement for that. I also don't agree to refer him like like that, because it isn't allowed to (subsequently) put academic titles in front of the name, this according to WP:NCNT. However, since 'Lord X of Y' is considered to be a new naming for a peer, puting "Lord Darzi of Denham" in the infobox (without the title 'professor') I would regard as correct. As you can see at Wikipedia for other barons, this is quite custom. He is also named at the [official parliament biography site]. This site also proves that he also can be named without the academic degree "professor". Therefore I change his name in the infobox from '"Professor Lord Darzi of Denham"' to "The Lord Darzi of Denham". Demophon (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Known for Pioneering keyhole surgery
In the infobox, it says that Darzi is "known for pioneering keyhole surgery". This is ambiguous:


 * Darzi pioneered keyhole surgery as a discipline; this does not seem to be borne out by Keyhole surgery.
 * Darzi made pioneering applications of keyhole surgery; this surely needs some sort of citation to say why it is pioneering.

There is a huge difference between these statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.25.140 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham. 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/20101202200122/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page76.asp to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/page76.asp#d
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414090402/http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/press-notices/2010/11/pm-announces-new-business-ambassadors-56764 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/press-notices/2010/11/pm-announces-new-business-ambassadors-56764

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ara Darzi, Baron Darzi of Denham. 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/20101009150254/http://www.healthcareforlondon.nhs.uk/a-framework-for-action-2 to http://www.healthcareforlondon.nhs.uk/a-framework-for-action-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted text explanation
I have deleted "The word Darzi is not seen as a complimentary word to many working in UK General Practice as it is associated with 'Darzi centres'." The reference for this is an opinion piece (https://www.gponline.com/lord-darzi-wrecked-uk-primary-care/article/807105) from 2008 by Chris Lancelot, described as "a GP from Lancashire". It contains deliberately overblown assertions like "Congratulations, Lord Darzi. You have wrecked the whole of primary care in the UK". I think such Wikipedia content needs much more than just this as a reference to justify its inclusion - multiple references, ideally from more substantial authorities, and also references showing such negative opinion has continued beyond just 2008, are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.128.89 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)