Talk:Michael Mosley (broadcaster)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Mosley (broadcaster) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	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 is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"The Story of Science"[edit]

I think that this is the presenter of the BBC Two series, "The Story of Science" - am I right? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I must be wrong. The man I was thinking of has a medical degree, and I think he was at one time a GP, and has worked as a science journalist. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can give visual confirmation that the man in the Youtube videos of The Story of Science self-identifies as the same Michael Mosley who is the subject of this article. But medical degrees are virtually ten-a-penny in the entertainment industry. Graeme Garden has one. Harry Hill has one. The Van Tulleken twins have one each!

Nuttyskin (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

Mike mentioned his birthday as Mar 22, 1957, when discussing calorie restricted diet in BBC's Make Me Live Forever 93.89.200.51 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he was born in 1957, then he would have been born in Calcutta not "Kolkata", which had not yet been adopted as the international name for the city. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His speech[edit]

It seems laboured, as though he has a problem, eg Stroke Why? This should be added. 78.151.29.201 (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can find a reliable source,in line with our policy for biographies of living persons. His speech seems fairly normal to me. Qwfp (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the above IP editor vandalized the article on Mosley. Eric ^talk 12:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"qualified doctor"[edit]

The article says he got his qualification but then never practiced. And that was many years ago. In UK 'Dr' is allowed title while registered to practice. Is "qualified doctor" an accurate summary of what he's known for, and if so should it be specified what his qualification is if not a MBBS ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MM's Wiki page seems to be very pro Mosley even though his dietary books are on the edge of quackery?

His programme on opioid efficacy was so one-sided it probably wouldn't be broadcast under current BBC guidelines. 2A00:23C8:292A:F501:E949:838C:1E70:7C07 (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His books have not been widely reviewed by medical experts. The only expert review is by Red Pen Reviews who gave it a 58% scientific accuracy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely not correct? Even while this apparently allows someone to use the title "Dr.", it's not a "real" doctorate, as that would be a higher degree awarded after a doctorate in Medicine? 94.255.241.134 (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Pen Reviews[edit]

This review says the book "scored weakly for scientific accuracy" [1]. This is a direct quote, not a misrepresentation. The book scored a 58% scientific accuracy which is low. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2.98.244.239 seems to be cherry-picking only positive comments from the review whilst ignoring the fact the book scored weakly for scientific accuracy over-all (58%). If a review is to be summarized we must be fair and give a good overview. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]