Talk:Simon Singh

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ps. i like his book though. :) 79.101.174.192 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]