Talk:Ben Goldacre/Archive 1

Top
Relating to earlier questions about whether Ben Goldacre is really a doctor etc, he is currently registered with the General Medical Council and anyone is able to check a doctor's registration on their website

Just to point out that Goldacre really does use a picture of Frankenstein's Monster as his byline pic, incase anyone assumes it's vandalism and is tempted to edit it. FrFintonStack 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"With some success"
"...and with some success: for example, McKeith has stopped calling herself a "doctor" on Channel 4, and Penta have ceased trading in the United Kingdom, under investigation from various bodies." - are there any sources for these being a direct result of Goldacre's columns? --McGeddon 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, this superstitious sentence of the article has now been removed, but if anyone does know of a direct connection, please add it back with sources. --McGeddon 10:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * McKeith has stopped calling herself Dr in her advertising literature, and this is reported as being the result of a complaint to the ASA by one of Goldacre's readers, so I've added this info with citation. Aretnap 21:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Qualifications
When we say he is a "doctor," what do we mean exactly? Is he employed as a physician, and if so, where? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Biog on his blog says he works full time for the NHS, and in his newspaper article of 12 today he describes himself as a junior doctor. Aretnap 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes he is a physician in London. --PaulWicks 08:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources for his background? Here, for example, he says he has a master's in philosophy from King's College, London, but with no mention of any further medical training. It would be good to pin it down with good sources, and to say where he works as a physician; to say that he works "for the NHS" doesn't really tell us anything. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1510223,00.html says near the end "Ben Goldacre is a medical doctor". That's the Guardian newspaper saying that, not some quack on their personal web site. Here is a paper he co-authored, apparently from his stint with fMMR at the University of Milan. Phaedrus86 10:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim given the enmity shown towards Ben on some recent articles I'm not inclined to delve particularly deep into where he works. However if it makes you feel any better I will say that I know for a fact he is a medic in London, working for the NHS. --PaulWicks 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul, we can't base an article on your personal knowledge: see WP:NOR. It would be good to pin down what his actual qualifications are, and where he works as a physician, particularly as he's being used extensively as a WP source about a living person, and part of his complaint about that person is that the history of her academic qualifications is unclear. It would be unusual for someone with no background in philosophy to be allowed to do an M.A. in it at King's College, London, as his CV on that website seems to claim; or perhaps the website means he has an M.Phil (master of philosophy rather than master's in philosophy), but then why wouldn't it say which subject? It's an oddly worded CV, as anyone who knows the British education system will have noticed; for example, it mentions that one of the degrees was "British Academy funded," which only means a government grant, and that's not unusual. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben Goldacre has had articles published in the BMJ. They're fairly careful about publishing work by impostors and frauds. Anyway, I'm sure if someone were to email Ben (an address is provided at badscience.net) the man himself could provide links to credible independent sites that would verify his qualifications, only someone more forward than me will have to do it.Jamrifis 22:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * the history of her academic qualifications is unclear Firstly, the history of her qualifications is a matter of record, so the history of his is irrelevant in this respect. Secondly, his awards are qualifications in themselves in that he received them for a large body of work that is publicly accessible. I would say that it is obvious on the available easily accessible evidence that his writing is regarded as first class. His writing is what he is notable for, and his writing is what the article is there for. He does not assert or imply that we should believe his statements because he is academically qualified, and in fact the Guardian does not even bother stating his qualifications any more. His articles mount arguments that are credible in themselves and on the sources he quotes from time to time. It is ridiculous to compare him to a charlatan. Phaedrus86 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) "If anyone wanted to check my degrees, memberships, or affiliations, then they could call up the institutions, and get instant confirmation: job done. If you said I wasn’t a doctor, I wouldn’t sue you; I'd roar with laughter." - Andy Mabbett 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anyone's personal opinion of Goldacre, the point is that we don't know what his qualifications are, and it would be good to know them, especially when he seems to have a postgraduate degree in philosophy but not an undergraduate one, which would be very unusual; and given that he highlights something very ordinary (a British Academy grant) on his CV as though it's something special, which is what he accuses his bête noire, Gillian McKeith, of having done in another context. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * His pg degree is an MPhil not an MA. An MPhil, like a PhD, does not have to be in philosophy - I assume you've read Master of Philosophy. I don't know of any institution that awards "Master's of..." rather than "Master of" in the UK, so I don't know where you're going with that. See Masters degree. And people who receive grants from the British Academy namecheck the their funding source as a matter of course. I don't see where you're going with that either? Hypnotist uk 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I do see where you're going now, at least with the first part (and I was overconfident - he could well have done an MA or even an MSc from KCL); I'm not convinced, though, it matters whether he gained a master of philosophy or a masters in philosophy. There'd almost certainly be no need for him to do undergrad philosophy if he studied philosophy of science for example... Of course, we could always ask him. Hypnotist uk 00:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * we don't know what his qualifications are - Yes we do Andy Mabbett 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "of" refers to the title of the degree; the "in" refers to the subject studies. For example, an engineering student could get a Bachelor of Engineering, or a Bachelor of Science in Engineering. A music student could get a Bachelor of Music or a Bachelor of Arts in Music. My understanding is that an MA from Oxford is not something you study for; it's something awarded by Oxford University to its own graduates after a number of years, on payment of an administrative fee. A Master's degree by examination or thesis from Oxford (or Cambridge) would be an MPhil, or MLitt, or MRes, or MSc, or some other M., but not an MA. Goldacre's website says he has a Master's degree in Philosophy; it doesn't give the title of that degree. In any case, I think it would be unusual to have a postgraduate degree in philosophy without an undergraduate one. ElinorD 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore part of that post. For some reason, I didn't take in that his master's was from KCL, and therefore I wrote some rather irrelevant things about the Oxford MA. My apologies. ElinorD (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do actually have both 'real' and 'upgraded' Masters degrees from Cambridge. FWIW I paid no fee to turn my BA into an MA. In any case Goldacre has his Masters from KCL, which does not offer this kind of 'upgrade'. I also do not see why it would be unusual to have a postgrad in philosophy without an undergrad one - consider philosophy of science, for starters. Hypnotist uk 00:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Andy, it's not clear what the CV on his blog means. Normally in a biography, we say A obtained his B.A. in X in 1990; his M.A. in Y in 1994; and his Ph.D. in Z in 1997 from such-and-such an institution. We have none of those details with Goldacre. We don't know which degree he obtained from Oxford; maybe he left after the B.A. (which would be unusual in medicine). When did he do his M.A. in philosophy? Has he actually completed his medical studies? Which degrees does he have? Where is he employed as a physician? There's a distinct lack of detail in his CV.


 * Hypnotist, I don't understand your post. How do you know his degree is an M.Phil? That's not what the website said; it said he has a master's in philosophy. And I don't know anyone who would mention on their CV that the British Academy gave them a grant, because it's not a big deal. It's very strange to talk about a "British Academy-funded master's degree." In fact, it's particularly strange to, as it were, boast about it for a master's. It's harder to get one for a Ph.D., but to the best of my knowledge, not hard at all to get one for an M.A. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already retracted some of what I said; I see your point about in/of, but not really why you find it a problem. Also, note he would be doing the masters degree as a postdoc. Indeed it is hard to get one for a PhD: "Rather, they must show that they are seeking support for advanced research at postdoctoral level (or equivalent). PhD candidates are not eligible to apply" . Hypnotist uk 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they certainly used to be, and although it wasn't easy, it wasn't that hard either, and MAs were very much easier. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So where are we? His own site says he works full time for the NHS. The Guardian has the same details of his qualifications as his site. The University of Leicester calls him Dr, and says "In his own words, Dr Ben Goldacre is a 'scientist, doctor, and guardian columnist, who reads every paper every day, has seen how the media works from the inside, and who gets into big fights about it with humanities graduate journalists at parties.'". So. Are there any WP:V sources that even come close to questioning his qualifications? Nobody has posted any. I don't know why there's a seeming drive to do WP:OR here (going by WP:AGF - I could speculate...) but we do have a fair few credible sources calling him a doctor and talking about his work and his academic background, and we have nothing calling that into question. So why is this even under discussion? Hypnotist uk 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But Hypnotist, this is supposed to be a biography and we don't know what his qualifications are or where he works. Does he have a B.A. from Oxford, or a B.M, B.Ch, and if the latter isn't from Oxford, where is it from and when did he get it; or an M.D., which I doubt, but it's possible, and if so, from where and when? And when did he get his master's in phil? It's odd that he offers none of this information on his online CV, particularly as his current big thing is to criticize someone else for being a bit murky about dates and institutions. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't believe he's criticising others for being murky about dates and institutions - he's rather more specific than that. Secondly, even if he was, that has nothing to do with the biographical information in article. Thirdly, it seems to me that he's being quite clear in the information he does and doesn't want publicly stated - can I remind you of WP:BLP? Fourthly the bios are quite clear in any case: he graduated from Oxford with a first. Since he's 32, and most British students enter university at 18, that means he would have been at Oxford 1992-1995. His first would have been a BA in Medical Sciences. It's also clear (from the article!) that he then went on to do his clinical medicine at UCL, where he got his doctorate. As I said below there are numerous sources repeating that he studied at Oxford and then at UCL and is now a qualified doctor working in the NHS. Yes, there are a few pieces of uncertainty but that's because there are no sources stating his exact CV - and by WP:BLP and WP:NOR, if they ain't there, we ain't allowed to fill in the holes. He's entitled to whatever privacy he wishes. Hypnotist uk 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no indication at all that he has a doctorate. I've looked to see whether he details his qualifications anywhere and he doesn't that I can see; and I'm pretty sure that if he mentions having a British Academy-funded master's, which really isn't a big deal, he'd say if he had a doctorate. I'm not suggesting we fill in the holes. I'm only making the point that there's a hint of the pot calling the kettle black. He has furnished the public with an incomplete and unclear CV &mdash; which has led you to form the impression, for example, that he has a doctorate when he may not &mdash; but then he accuses others of having done the same, with great vitriol, as though it's a hanging offense. I know there are important differences between the two cases; I'm not suggesting complete parity. But I'm suggesting there's a distinct similarity. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm trying hard to WP:AGF here but this is ridiculous. Thank you for the edit - I'm more comfortable assuming good faith with the updated version. Anyway, the rest of my comment pre-edit conflict: Doesn't have a doctorate? He is a doctor, he is called a doctor by: The Guardian, The University of Leicester, the Natural History Museum, the ESRC, the BBC and the DTI. And that's just from a few minutes with google. As far as I know, nobody is going to the ASA to claim he's not a doctor, either. I've asked already, but I will ask again: what possible evidence do you have for doubting his doctorate? Is there any one single source you can quote that might call it into question? And if you find the idea that he's a real doctor that hard to believe, why don't you ring up UCL and ask - as he has already challenged any doubters to do? (And finally, can I remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well...) Hypnotist uk 02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all physicians have doctorates, Hypnotist. In the UK, physicans who have bachelor's degrees are allowed to call themselves "doctor," but it's just an honorary thing; it doesn't mean they are Doctors of Medicine, which in the UK is a doctorate i.e. a research degree equivalent to a Ph.D. Anyway, this is a little off-topic for the page. We should really only be discussing the contents of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, we're talking at cross-purposes. I doubt he has a (UK) MD or a PhD; I'm using 'doctorate' as shorthand for the qualifications necessary to become a qualified medical doctor, a la the US model. This certainly gives him the right to call himself 'Dr' which was the point I was making (honorary title or not, the meaning in this context is pretty clear). I understand from the badscience forums that he's currently a Specialist registrar. As for your last comment: that's what I've been saying all along! We need verifiable sources questioning his qualifications, otherwise we should let this lie. Hypnotist uk 11:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, for whatever reason Slimvirgin is a pro-McKeith supporter. It doesn't matter what evidence we bring on here, he/she is just going to try and pick pathetic holes in it anyway. My impression is that whilst, via the column, Dr. Goldacre is in the public eye, he does not run around promoting an alternative lifestyle on the basis of qualifications. Rather, he argues for balanced rationalism and critical thinking. Now do you need to be qualified to think rationally these days?!? --PaulWicks 08:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin is neither a supporter nor an attacker of McKeith. I suppose it doesn't occur to you that someone might be acting in the interests of Wikipedia (at least as they see it) with no ulterior motive. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be nice to be able to discuss things without speculating on the motives and beliefs of other editors. ElinorD (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the M.A. to master's degree, as this does not state that it's an M.A. degree. It almost certainly is, as the KCL website gives details of an M.A. in philosophy for people who already have a degree in another subject, and offers an MPhil or an MPhilStud in philosophy to those who already have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy. We don't know when he did it; it's possible that there may have been other postgraduate philosophy degrees available, which are now discontinued, or that there's some other possible qualification that I just didn't find when looking briefly at the KCL website.

In any case, while I don't doubt that he has a master's, unless we have a verifiable source saying that it's a Master's in Arts, we shouldn't state as a fact that it is. ElinorD (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking that up, Elinor. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, one can now see why you have that name. Just take it that Ben's a doctor, work in the NHS and unlike many other people, he doesn't embellish his CV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he appears to be the Ben Michael Goldacre listed in the records of the UK's General Medical Council. Michael Harman 195.92.168.163 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He has confirmed to me that he is indeed the Ben Michael Goldacre of the BMC listing. He has strongly criticized Gilliam McKeith for using the title “Doctor” when she does not appear to have that qualification from an institution generally recognized as qualified to confer that title. Michael Harman

His qualifications are listed here: http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/staff/profile/default.aspx?go=11920 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.38.92 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Most MDs in the UK are NOT really doctors. They have a degree in medicine. The title Doctor is only honorary. Very few go on to obtain a 'real' Doctorate in medicine.92.21.142.153 (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard qualifying medical degree in the UK is (and has been for a few hundred years) the double baccalaureate degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MB BS or MB ChB) (technically this is two degrees which are typically awarded at the same time - I believe that Cambridge, possibly uniquely, awards the degrees separately). For long-standing historical reasons, a holder of this degree is entitled to the courtesy title of 'Dr'.  In recent years, dentists, who typically have the degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) have also adopted 'Dr' as a courtesy title, although a friend of mine who's a qualified vet tells me that there are currently no plans for Bachelors of Veterinary Medicine to follow suit.  The degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD) is, in the UK either a postgraduate research degree roughly analogous to a PhD, or a higher research doctorate like the DLitt or DSc, awarded upon submission of a substantial portfolio of high-quality original research - it's different from the US degree of MD, which is a taught degree essentially analogous to the UK degree of MB ChB. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All MDs in the UK really are doctors. As mentioned above, a UK MD is roughly equivalent to a PhD and is given only to medically qualified clinicians, i.e. all MDs in the UK are awarded to people who already hold a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, so whether you believe those with an MBBS or MBChB are only honorary "doctors", an MD is a medical doctorate, so all MDs in the UK really are doctors.

And that ignores the fact that a very substantial proportion of medical doctors in the UK, especially consultant hospital physicians and surgeons will have done postgraduate research to MD or PhD level.

In any case, this applies to all UK medical doctors. With regard to Dr Goldacre's qualifications, he is a registered doctor with an MBBS, a BA and an MA and for all you know may be working towards an MD or a PhD as well.

Some might say that medical doctors are real doctors, and it is those non-medically qualified PhDs who are not "real" doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.38.92 (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed "some" might. Shot info (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the UK those people would be "wrong". Verbal   chat  07:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's utterly bizarre that people would question the qualifications of someone who writes for the Guardian, has lectured at the Royal Institution, is registered on the GMC website, and also has a page of his own qualifications on the King's College London website. From my impression, it seems as though there's an attempt at debunking his qualifications, rather than elucidating them. It is not unheard of that someone would have a Master's in Philosophy without having a BA. Someone with a distinguished career would be more than welcomed at a University to take a specialized philosophy course. And for those doubting whether he's a medical doctor -- I can't comperehend this at all. There are innumerable ways to verify the claim.

CND
"Goldacre took part in the Easter 2004 march from Trafalgar Square to AWE Aldermaston as part of a CND demonstration against Britain's investment in new nuclear weapons."

I'm not sure why this is notable, especially to the section on bad science column, and as it's unsourced I've removed it. Aretnap 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use image
My understanding is that we're not allowed to use fair use images of living persons, as it would not be unreasonably difficult for a Wikipedian to attend a book-signing event, lecture, etc., and take a photo, which he/she could then release under GDFL. See here, for example, and here. ElinorD 10:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's all part of his penalty for daring to criticize Gillian McKeith :-) Phaedrus86 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. She certainly knows how to use PR to effect.  It's kind of a wikipedia-gerrymander, a gerrypeida? or perhaps a wikimander?  ••Briantist••   talk  10:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Brought very much to mind your recent reference to irony on the GMcK talk page :-) Phaedrus86 11:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * rotfl. I've emailed Ben to ask for a copyright free image of himself and for some more details about his qualifications. I hope I get a reply.  ••Briantist••   talk  11:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A copyright free image would be great. Thanks for doing that. The details about his qualifications would have to be in a more verifiable source than a private e-mail from him to you, though. ElinorD 11:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite so. In any case we have plenty of good sources for his qualifications - perhaps not to the detail some wikieditors would like, but again: WP:NOR. What does it really matter whether he has an MA or an MSc or an MPhil from KCL? He is a qualified and working doctor and we have multiple reliable sources saying so. He studied for a masters in philosophy, and likewise sources exist. OTOH, we have a grand total of zero sources calling any of this into doubt. WP:BLP says we shouldn't even think about questioning his qualifications without seriously strong sources (and some of the editors coming over from Gillian McKeith have been very active in pointing this out over there, why the double standard?). Unless a serious source comes out doubting his qualifications, I respectfully suggest we let that question rest. Hypnotist uk 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay Hypnotist, if we have "plenty of good sources for his qualifications," what are they? Tell us what his qualifications are. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He's a qualified doctor with a first in Medical Sciences from Oxford, and his clinical studies were completed at UCL. He has a masters in philosophy from KCL. He's now a qualified doctor working in the NHS. That information can be found in plenty of places - including right here in our article. Hypnotist uk 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that he might be able to provide a link to a detailed bio!  ••Briantist••   talk  13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I applaud that you did from the POV of making wikipedia more complete! Equally though, he's quite within his rights to refuse and it would make absolutely no difference to the article if he did. I hope all editors can accept that. Hypnotist uk 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

His request for donations
Goldacre seems to be soliciting donations on his blog. Does anyone know what the donations are for? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. Through the power of literacy: :"I’ll get a recorder and posh mic soon (nearly there), and get the website loading faster and streaming mp3 files quick after that. If someone gives me a hundred grand I’ll start a university in the Cayman Islands and you can all have a PhD." --PaulWicks 18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. If he's using his blog to collect money for himself, we should be careful not to link to it unnecessarily. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still wet behind the ears as a wikieditor, but it seems to be the majority of sources used collect money in one way or another (mainly through advertising). Could you direct me to the policy behind what you're saying please? It'd be useful for some of the other articles I'm editing. (On a general point, I'm all for diversity of sources!) Hypnotist uk 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I missing SlimVirgin's subtle wit here? Soliciting money? Goldacre is joking. He does that quite a lot.Jamrifis 16:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know he's joking? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The paypal link is buried in an entry in the archive, and he's also asking for someone to give him a flat... He's still flogging t-shirts and his book though. I assume that's just as heinous. Hypnotist uk 18:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Goodness! Look at the top link on this page! Perhaps we should delete all "unnecessary" links to pages on that site? Andy Mabbett 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:EL only advises against linking to sites that "primarily exist to sell products or services" or that "require payment or registration to view the relevant content". Goldacre's site is obviously doing neither of these. --McGeddon 19:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I need to point out that websites aint free, the man is an NHS Doctor for lawd's sake. "The Bad Science Amazon Store is an incredibly exciting opportunity for me to make money for webhosting fees out of your innate desire to consume knowledge. There’s an expanding list of excellent books, click here and help me pay my webhosting fees:"-from here. To take this link hunt further we'ld have to remove the links to any and all webcomics (they either sell tshirts based on the strip or have a paypal donate button on their main page) Dmanning 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do I know he's joking? Are you joking now? Does using my sense of humour constitute original research? Maybe we should start a section on the page about this university Goldacre's trying to open in the Caymans. Jamrifis 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Even better, maybe someone could make a userbox for those of us who want to claim we've been there? --PaulWicks 09:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth?
Do we have one?Most bios have at least an age. ThanxVeryscarymary 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 24th May 1975 - you wouldn't be the "SlimVirgin" twunt with a new name by any chance ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.71.113 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for that? 62.56.71.113, please remember to assume good faith. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Still no date of birth....also not even the fact that he was born! most wiki articles at least have a location of someone's birth. This reads rather strangely, as if he just 'appeared' at Oxford, also no mention of his mother. Does he have one? I thought she was a pop singer? best wishes xx Veryscarymary (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Practically all people are born at a very early age, so it shouldn't trouble readers to assume that he was born. We don't have to say it outright, and the early years are not particularly interesting for most people. If you have a good source, then perhaps we could add some detail, but we shouldn't be extrapolating biographical details without a source. bobrayner (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Counterbalance
I think Ben Goldacre is a big bore, not impressive at either bashing bad science (where are his critiques of his own science base, medicine, or the main global dodgy science, economics?), or educating people about science (he allows the assumption to emerge that science is all nice and neat, and gilded - in fact, the history of discovery is dominated by messy intuitions being sought manically, and crackpots doing the seeking...Newton, anyone?).

Is there nothing on this article that can be brought to bear negatively? Yes, editors, I could find something. And so could you.

Also, lovely wiki Editors, just a meek whinge about photos. Why on earth can't you use his promo pictures? Sheesh. So many pages on Wikipedia are without photos, it's a disgrace. Don't lecture me about copyright, either. Just solve it, why not?

And - why not just contact Goldacre for answers on most of this discussion?

Thanks a lot.

Jmanooch (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Goldacre is a defender of the status quo; in fact he has criticised the 'big pharma' industry on many occasions, and I do recall that he said something to the effect that he does not automatically believe that today's conventional knowledge is immune to criticsm, because, as you say, many conventions are soon overturned when a new mode of thinking emerges. What he is opposed to (and criticises) is the quackery masquerading as science that floats around in the media and online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.251 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A link to a critical book by Martin J. Walker about Goldacre was removed recently. There still needs to be an acknowledgement that he is not above criticism, given his penchant for making sly ad hom attacks on individuals whose positions happen to be opposed to his. Sam Weller (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem: just find a reliable, published source that criticises him and add it to the article yourself. Polemarchus (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Walker's 'book' is not an appropriate source as it is a self-published pdf. WP:V states that Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer and WP:BLP that Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Moreover, I sincerely doubt Walker's notability, especially since an article clearly devoted to the same person was was previously deleted as non-notible. I cannot help notice that his new article was created by none other than user:Sam Weller, who keeps directing other users to an earlier previous, no-consensus, deletion debate, when they question the notibility of the new articleFrFintonStack (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say Walker's polemic is appropriate? I did not insert it here originally, and have made no attempt to reinstate it. It's not even included in the Walker article itself. My point here was that it represented the only critical material in this article. Secondly, when has anyone questioned the notability of the current Walker article, other than you, just now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_J._Walker#Martin_J._Walker Sam Weller (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stay on topic here please. Martin Walker's notability is irrelevant — the policies that apply are WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.  If anyone wants to include criticisms of Goldacre, the first thing they need to do is find a reliable, published source.  Until then, this discussion is a waste of time.  Polemarchus (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The need for counterbalance has diminished along with the mythologizing (deals only with facts) that presumably led to this section. Sam Weller (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are doctors too - of course
My earlier change in the opening sentence from 'doctor' to 'psychiatrist' was hastily reverted, with the tag, 'He can be a doctor and psychiatrist. The Dr label is more usual and what he uses.' I'm not sure if the reverting editor is familiar with British medical titles and degrees. A psychiatrist is by definition already a doctor - one who has qualified in medicine/surgery and then undertaken specialist training in Psychiatry. Psychiatrist is the usual and correct appellation for such an individual, as seen in these opening sentences: Raj Persaud, Simon Wessely. They are both doctors, and use the titles Dr or Professor, but they are described in WP as psychiatrists. The description 'doctor' (not to be confused with the title Doctor/Dr) is pretty vague. Readers have to persist to the end of the Academic career to discover what this doctor actually does for a living. Ben Goldacre discusses aspects of his psychiatric work here in passing (rather a good article, I thought). The byline describes him as 'a psychiatrist', so why is it being prevented here? Sam Weller (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am familiar, but the general public isn't - we don't need ambiguous specificity in the first sentence. He refers to himself, and is referred to as, and actually is, a doctor. My revert wasn't hasty. Medical doctor would be a better description. I don't think psychiatrist is as well understood as you believe, but I have no objection to it being elsewhere in the article, or even in the lead in addition to medical doctor. I myself am a non-medical doctor, so I am familiar with this confusion. As an aside, a better description for Raj would be "disgraced psychiatrist". Of course you are technically correct, but that isn't always what is understood by the term. Verbal   chat  22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think anyone reading this article will know what a psychiatrist is, but that's not the point. The point is that, while we know that he's studied psychiatry, we also know that he's studied clinical medicine.  His blog, his book, and his profiles on the guardian website and his agent's website all say he's working as a junior doctor in London, and describe him as a doctor, so that's what we should do.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 03:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Verbal's revision does that - and improves on it by letting readers know he's a psychiatrist too. Sam Weller (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MPhil?
Does "He received a masters degree in philosophy" mean an MPhil (a postgraduate research degree somewhere between an MA/MSc and a PhD) or does it mean he has a postgraduate degree actually in philosophy? I suspect the former, but does anyone know for definite? The cited source is ambiguous. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the latter  77.102.173.23 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that seems less ambiguous - thanks. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
A mention of a source critical of Goldacre was reverted. The author has written of the criticism has written 4 books and is widely cited. To say the author or the book is "non-notable" is simply wrong - it's widely cited. The article as it appears currently is almost entirely supportive of Goldacre yet Goldacre is a controversial figure. There is no mention of any kind of alternative perspective, so the article would not meet Biographies_of_living_persons criteria. Surely Goldacre, as a notable figure, is worthy of more than a puffpiece? To revert some criticism that appears rather unprominently at the bottom of the article leaves the article as inherently biased - (see NPOV). Also, the reason for reverting confuses Notable and CITE - please read to clear up your confusion. I'll restore the piece in the meantime - please discuss further on the talk page if you have further objections. Greenman (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see while I was writing the above I was beaten to the chase and the criticism was re-added :) Greenman (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is undue weight to add an entire section about a self-published work criticising a BLP without evidence of significant coverage of said work in independent, reliable sources. The self-cite merely confirms its existence, not its relevance to his biographical article here. Maralia (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no WP:RS for this. Verbal   chat  20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you're making it difficult. You could have done a 10-second Google check for other sources (mostly critical) mentioning this work, yet you choose instead to revert it. To say that linking to the source of criticism is self-citing is as stupid as saying "Goldacre criticised X", linking to a blog of his that says this, and then arguing about whether this is a reliable source. I'm not going to revert again, I'll simply NPOV, and anybody else interested in improving this rather light article can review. To say a tiny section at the bottom is "undue weight" when it's the only criticism (and one widely featured on both supportive and critical sites, which you'd have discovered if you'd spent the 10 seconds before assuming bad faith yourself and reverting), is ridiculous. I could restore the citation and do even more work by listing the further citations, but judging by the trigger-happy attitude here, it may be a waste of time. The book is criticised in numerous sources on the web. I'm not saying believe the book, but mention it as a counter-view, and a widely-read criticism! I refer you again to NPOV. Greenman (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I forgot to consider that this is a living person, and there is usually more onus on providing reliable sources for criticism. However, I still stand by my point, and feel that with there is enough to go on to justify the initial change. Greenman (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the free PDF you link to appears to be a self-published source, and "self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons". You're right that the same goes for Goldacre's blog, but as I understand it the sourced blog entries are reprints of his published columns in the Guardian. If any are solely blog entries, yet criticise living people, feel free to remove them.
 * Has Martin Walker's PDF been reviewed by any reliable sources? Ten seconds of Google only turns up other self-published websites; I'm not seeing anything in Google News archives. --McGeddon (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I did do a google search before I commented above. The first two pages of results did not show anything that appeared to approach significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been through this before: Walker's "book" is self-published and thus its inclusion to make any remotely controversial claims about Goldacre would be a blatant breach of WP:BLP, even if it were notible (and I maintain it is not: note that its author's entry has twice been deleted as non-notible). WP:V states that Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer and WP:BLP that Self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Please note also that BLP states that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This is non-negotiable, and the users reverting the criticisms were entirely correct in their approach.


 * If anyone wants to add criticism that meets BLP, V and RS guidelines, the articles that this page links to (though not the page itself) might be a good place to start, though frankly they're so hysterical, poorly-researched, poorly-reasoned and obviously factually-incorrect that their inclusion is only likely to bolster Goldacre's reputation.FrFintonStack (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Or this, though I doubt any of his Wikipedia detractors will be clamoring to add criticism of the "doesn't go nearly far enough" variety.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Covered in Newsweek article
In the Nov. 8, 2010 print edition of Newsweek, an article entitled "Wanted: BS Detectors" quotes Goldacre extensively. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link
I noticed that the link to Goldacre's bio with his agent http://www.pfd.co.uk/clients/goldben/a-pre.html is broken. I could not find a replacement page. Rather than remove the crucial biographical link, I suggest that an editor familiar with this page replaces it. Robert Currey  talk  13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This page is used as reference 2 but that already contains a link to a copy on the Internet Archive so I don't see there's a problem. Qwfp (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Guardian article devoted to praise of Goldacre
This article is devoted to praise of Goldacre:


 * The best science writers convey irresistible enthusiasm for their subject: A winner of last year's Science Writing Prize explains why she finds Ben Goldacre's Bad Science so compelling. Tess Shellard, The Guardian, 29 March 2012

Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Twins?
Would we mention his kids, seeing as how he mentioned it in his column today?

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/21/nhs-plan-share-medical-data-save-lives

Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not see how mentioning someone's kids would add anything the article. That said, might not someone using their kids - in this form of self-promotion - be called Bad Journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.110.43 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism
This book "investigates Dr Ben Goldacre’s role in industry lobby groups and puts another point of view in defense of some of the people whom he has attacked, belittled, satirized, castigated, vilified, maligned and opined against in his junk journalism." What is to prevent some of the above points being highlighted in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.185.242 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)