Talk:Paul Workman (scientist)

Request to add picture of Paul Workman
I would like to add an image of Paul Workman to his profile section. There is a suitable image I uploaded today to Wikimedia Commons commons:File:Professor_Paul_Workman_FRS.png. I'm requesting this edit due a potential Conflict of Interest, I work at the Institute of Cancer Research and it is my photo that I want to be added to his page. This photo was taken from a video interview we did to coincide with today's announcement that he has been a Fellow of the Royal Society http://www.icr.ac.uk/news-archive/eminent-cancer-researchers-elected-to-royal-society-fellowship

I am a member of the ICRs Communications team and have been asked to add his photo to his story, but wanted to ensure I did this in the correct manner.

Keith Bradnam (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * hello keith, just added the picture, thanks for posting it

Edit request
The associated page was recently edited on February 3rd by user 146.90.89.75 to add a sentence concerning scientific criticism of Paul Workman.

The cited source of this criticism is a blog. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines on identifying reliable sources self-published blogs should not be used as a source for material about a living person.

The blog in question does not appear to be written with a neutral point of view and I would therefore ask that this sentence is removed.

Ak6248 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply 09-FEB-2018
The claim statement added by the anon IP was removed. Additionally, many of the references for this article were found to contain URL's which were no longer active. A cursory search was then undertaken to resolve these URL's to the documents which were presumably attached at one time or another. Many of these sources could not be located. After being redirected to the web portals involved, a search was performed using the search bar's present on the pages in question. These searches were either not sufficiently covered with terms to carry out the search, or the portal returned the message that the desired content could not be found. This information was removed from the article, with the caveat that reliable references from secondary sources once relocated may be proposed for re-incorporation into the article. Several references were for journal articles or drug studies on subjects which contained only a tenuous connection to the article's subject. For instance, a claim was made that the subject was a key participant in the drug's development, yet the source is not a reference covering the development of the drug — but rather — a study of the drug treating patients unconnected to the drug's initial development. Statements making such claims ought to be backed by references which are germane to the topic of the claim. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   03:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

URL removed / more info
The URL reference to the subject's fellowship to the Royal Society removed. Only the URL was removed — the claim itself remains, as I don't dispute its veracity. The problem was with the Royal Society site, which stated, in part:"...Materials posted on our site ... may be inaccurate or out of date. We therefore disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed by you or any other party on any Content or information appearing on our sites." I'll search for an alternate source which is likely to be from one of the Society's printed publications.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you User:Spintendo for addressing my edit request. Your action on this is appreciated. Ak6248 (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
The associated page was recently edited by user 62.133.14.134. The edit adds a new section (‘Problematic data’) which contains a single sentence and a link. The sentence is a comment and does not constructively add to this page. I therefore request that these edits are removed. Thank you. Ak6248 (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 *  spintendo   12:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request
The associated page was recently edited to add details of a published paper that has been retracted and another one that has been corrected. This new information was added into a section that was called ‘Awards and honours’ which was also renamed to include ‘and retraction’.

I suggest that this new material be removed for the following reasons:

1. The retraction notification (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/17/9/2075) makes it clear that this work was carried out in the lab of Professor Anne Jackman who was the senior author. Paul Workman is not named in the retraction and was not a corresponding author on the related publication.

2. The second link which mentions the paper correction (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00280-018-3674-9) also establishes that this research occurred in the lab of Anne Jackson.

3. It does not seem a standard practice to flag papers that have had corrections on Wikipedia biography pages.

4. The Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) suggests not giving disproportionate space to particular viewpoints and this would seem disproportionate (given the reasons stated above).

5. The above guidelines also suggest that ‘Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.’ and this undue emphasis on a retraction and a correction does seem unbalanced.

Ak6248 (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP editor wishing to add these controversial details should bring them to the talk page for discussion.  spintendo   01:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Spintendo for following up on my COI edit request. Appreciated.

Ak6248 (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)