Talk:Simon Singh

Title of thesis

The title of his Ph.D. thesis is "Heavy flavour physics at the CERN p=p collider" - is it worth adding?

Verified at http://www.theses.com/idx/scripts/it.asp?xml=F:\index\idx\docs\all\40\it00176091.htm&subfolder=/search (You'll need a subscription to www.theses.com, eg. university subscription, to see it)

I've added it. Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to Fermats Last Theorem

The link should really be to a review of his book, which seems to contain a lot more than just the theorem. I was hoping to find a review here. Could anyone that read the book write a brief one? DanielDemaret 08:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sikh category appropriate?

Is there any source that Simon Singh is a Sikh? Obviously, he has the Sikh surname, but he could have renounced it for agnosticism/atheism. He obviously does not follow the 5 Ks of Sikhism. A source for his Sikhism is required, or else he should be removed from the "British Sikhs" category. Epa101 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sikhism as well as being a religion, is also defined as being a race (Race Relations Act 1976), it sounds tenuous but Simon Singh can be a non practising Sikh, but still be of the Sikh race (as is the case for Jews)- so i think its valid that he be included under British Sikhs. P.S. you don't have to observe the 5K's of the rehit maryada to be a practising Sikh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msp4realmf (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from my personal view that it is nonsense to call Sikhism or Judaism "races", WP itself clearly defines Sikhs as "adherents of Sikhism". Even if there were a "race of Sikhs", and even if Simon Singh was a member of that race (which for all I know could be as justifiable as the simplistic descriptions of Barak Obama as "black" — see One drop rule), you would still have to expressly, explicitly define this non-standard meaning in the article to avoid misinterpretation as the standard meaning. —DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine

What is the difference between the existing book (Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial) and the forthcoming book (Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine), and shouldn't the latter be listed in the article too??
(Note: the difference is not the binding — both are/will be available in paperback and hardback.)
—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC))
P.S. Cross-posted on Talk:Edzard Ernst

That's easy. The first book is the UK release of the book (ISBN 978-0593061299), the second is the U.S. release (ISBN 0393066614). I don't know why they changed the subtitle on the book, but click those two ISBN's and go to WorldCat.org and you'll notice the publisher on the first is "London : Bantam Press" and on the second is "New York : W.W. Norton & Co.". Great book by the way. --Krelnik (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

archiving per WP:CHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
libel? i don't know what is the british law, but this statement: The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. tells me this guy is full of sh** (referring to the bolded part -- didn't have other problems). I had such a back pain in the past that sometimes i couldn't sleep, and after visiting a chiropractor my problem was solved. 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) ps. i like his book though. :) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) yay for anecdotal 'evidence' that'll show him... 82.20.225.232 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate comment regarding Guardian's involvement in libel case

Hi, I'm new to this editing thing, but spotted an inaccuracy on this page that I thought should be corrected. Having tried editing the page directly, I'm informed by Brangifer that the correct form is to discuss the matter here first.

The phrase in question says: "Despite an offer made on 13 May 2009 by The Guardian to pay the BCA's legal costs in an out-of-court settlement if Singh chose not to appeal," and references this website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/may/13/simon-singh-british-chiropractic-association

The part of the article I believe the phrase is referring to is at the end, in particular a quote from a statement made by the Guardian which that article reports as saying: "We supported Simon and funded his legal advice when the case was brought against him. The recommended legal advice was to settle out of court and we offered to pay for the British Chiropractic Association's costs should he choose to follow this course of action,"

This actually indicates that the Guardian offered to pay the BCA's legal costs if the matter was settled out of court when the action was first brought, NOT based on whether Simon decided to appeal the preliminary hearing decision. Additionally although the statement seems to have been made on 13 May (the article was published on 14 May, and says that the statement was made the day before), the offer appears to have been made some time before that.

I would suggest deleting that phrase, leaving the paragraph simply saying: "Singh's campaign team announced via its Facebook group on 4 June 2009[citation needed] that Singh had resolved to make an appeal against Justice Eady's ruling. This decision raises substantially the potential financial liability that Singh may face personally if he loses the case." Dryad42 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just edited it to change "chose not to appeal" to "chose to settle" to reflect what the source says, but I think the sentence belongs in it's proper chronological place, in the first paragraph of the section, before the words "The suit is ongoing...". Brunton (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Singh's incorrect estimation of the observable universe

Should it be noted Singh's comment on the observable universe being 13.7 billion light-years was probably a misquote of the approximate age of the universe (13.7 billion years), as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch ? Toferdelachris (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, then the size of the observable universe is 13.7 billion light-years across, by definition. Dryad42 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, see observable universe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a good point being made here: Observable universe Misconceptions. Skeptic sid (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased mention of lawsuit in first paragraph?

"In 2008, Singh was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association for criticising their activities in a column in The Guardian.[1] A backlash to the lawsuit is occurring, with Nature Medicine noting that the case has gathered wide support for Singh from thousands of scientists, journalists and parliamentarians, as well as prompting calls for the reform of libel law.[2]"

This just seems biased to me. No mention of the actual court ruling, only of a supposed "backlash"? Anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckbeach (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have now tweaked the wording by noting that the case is ongoing, and have also noted the elements in the actual backlash. Never before has a case stimulated such a backlash against chiropractic and British libel laws, and various groups are now coordinating their efforts with parliamentarians to get those libel laws changed. So not only has the filing of the libel charge against Singh directly resulted in enormous bad press for chiropractic, it has also resulted in the filing of charges against hundreds of individual chiropractors, and all three British chiropractic associations have reacted with strongly worded advice to their members, with McTimoney ordering their members to take down their websites, and the association itself removing nearly all content from view. It has also resulted in another, much broader, cause being taken up, the reforming of libel laws in Britain. All in all a very significant backlash, and not at all "supposed". It's time for you to do your homework and find out what's really been going on with this case. You can best do that by contacting SAS and asking to get their newsletter, then read their links to other sources of information. BTW, thanks for pointing out the weakness of that part of the lead. It is now improved and better follows the guidelines for writing a LEAD, where all significant topics in an article are to be summarized in the lead. If you think the case needs to be covered better, then there is a whole section devoted to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, but you lost the part about calls to reform British English libel laws. That might be a bit much for just a summary, especially as to my knowledge nothing concrete has come of it, but it is my impression that the potential abuse of the court system in matters of scientific discourse is a major reason for the cited wide support. Leaving it for the body is probably better than just tacking it on to that sentence, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brother's business relevance?

Do we really need a reference to his brother's business venture in the very first paragraph? Seems a bit like something Singh would toss in to help out his brother, rather than something that's relevant to who Simon Singh is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 April 2010

File:Simon Singh Edit.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Simon Singh Edit.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Simon Singh Edit.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of workplaces (Imperial College London and University of Cambridge)

Aloneinthewild, can you expound this edit please? Kind regards Timelezz (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, while he is an alma mater of those institutions there is nothing I could find to say he worked there afterwards. Regarding the categories, as I mentioned in the edit summary we don't categorise people by honorary degrees per WP:OC#AWARD as that would end up with overcategorisation for people like Stephen Hawking etc. who have many and where honorary degrees are not defining characteristics. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal costs

It says that "the Guardian supported him and offered to pay for his legal advice", but then finishes the paragraph saying that it cost him "tens of thousands of pounds out of pocket". If the fees were covered by the Guardian, then the money wasn't "out of pocket". That implies it was his own money being spent. AnnaGoFast (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Evidence

Has anyone got a postdoc on digital security? There are a stack of papers easily added to references but if I do it, it would be dishonest since it's not my MAIN subject. Linking to the different codes is high priority. 1-time pad, Vernier, RSA, DES, 'the great cypher' and so on are all on Wiki. You can reference chapter by chapter as he does.

The 1-time pad is the only 100% secure system and that's pencil and paper. Using a column in a daily newspaper could serve as random key if letter frequency was dealt with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think any discussion on codes, if any at all, should be within the The Code Book article, not in this biographical article. That said, even The Code Book should be about the book, its impact, publishing history, the associated cryptology competition, and so on. Discussion of the codes should be within their relevant articles. —BillC ^talk 12:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)