Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

I think Martin is notable under the publication guidelines, and for his activist work. -- Danny Yee 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Danny Yee, seconded. This guy is remarkably prolific and energetic, as well as dedicated. He even posts the full texts of his books online (i.e. obviously not motivated by personal profit). NOTABLE ENOUGH. -- Alan2012 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree too. Notable enough! Johnfos 09:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Martin is both notable and tres cool.

3rd paragraph

Johnfos has critisised this paragraph. Guy will need to comment on this. Gongwool (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a diverse list of mainly refereed papers. Which of these do you think is "activist publishing"? (from anonymous)

Anonymous, I've made the cites relevant to "often published by activist publishers" (or primarily he does), i.e. cites x2 - Irene Publishing & Google Scholar Citations. Please stop trying to de-neutralize article by loading it up with anything you can scramble from the net - even listing stuff not written by Martin, LOL! Other (a lesser amount?) of non-activist publ have been listed in paragraph 5, so please be happy with that. Gongwool (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

BLP:OR "often published by A rather than B" removed

The 2 sources given for this are not accurately reflected by "Martin often published by A rather than B".

Rather the inserting editor seems to have formed this opinion (A rather than B) and is using the irenepublishing source as an example to support their WP:OR. The other source contains nothing that I can see as connected to the editor's opinion.

This OR has no place on a WP BLP. Please reflect sources accurately. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Saving refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.109.96 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Fixed the issues in sentence as complained about. Thank you for your constructive criticism - fin. It has been a promotional article for many years, this eventually had to be attended to. Gongwool (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hatchet Job?

What happened? This entry had references to the significant body of work by Martin that was very useful, but it is all disappeared. It has been replaced with what reads like a smear campaign. Are the astroturfers targeting Prof. Martin for some reason? Seabreezes1 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm no astroturfer, I'm here as one wanting to offer alt opinion against a Dominant Paradigm, that being say a big PHD issuing University and say a institutionalized Professor. They may be generally believed to be infallible, unquestionable, non-transparent, able to review internally, secretive and unanswerable to ethical questions of academic rigor. Also publicly funded. If pretentious seeming SST academics in their old-boys-club institutions consider this dissent, then so be the irony. Jewjoo (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No idea, but you're free to reintroduce anything that can be shown to be significant by reference to reliable independent sources. Obviously we're not going to trawl his website and university homepage and present his own selection of his work based on that, but there is no reason not to include anything that has received independent commentary. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Facts and sources removed

• The fact of Martin's prior paid membership of AVN has been removed. That seems ot me to be a significant fact, especially in the context of his support for the antivaxer Wilyman.
• This source has been removed: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/wollongong-university-accepts-thesis-on-vaccine-conspiracy/news-story/dbd57d8909779f4d82ece7b9ab8d520a - it contains the important statement that "The thesis was supervised by Brian Martin, a professor of social sciences at the university with a long history of supporting controversial PhD candidates," whic seems to me to be useful context for an article on someone whose notability springs in no small part from exactly that.
• A statement about criticism has been reframed as if David Gorski is the only critic. This is simply not true, the other sources include similar criticism from plenty of others.
• The link with Michael Primero has been expunged entirely. Why? Martin supervised this crank, the title of his PhD was "The 'politics' of vaccination: a scientific controversy analysis" - not dissimilar to Wilyman's PhD and Primero also contributed to this pile of fetid dingo's kidneys.

SOme of this text should be restored. WP:BLP does not mean we whitewash critical commentary just because a subject disputes it. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! The short version is that there were a pile of BLP violations in the article - claims not supported by sources, sources being incorrectly used to create false claims, and issues around due weight. I don't have any particular issue with the sources themselves, but the claims they were supporting had to be removed, so they went with them. :) More specifically, I removed the mention of the membership of the AVN as it was a lone statement without any context. The context you mention might be important, but it is just a throwaway claim in the source. The second reference was removed because the claim it was supporting was false to the extent of being a serious BLP issue, and as it wasn't being used for anything else I took it out. I don't see why it couldn't be used for an accurate claim, but that wasn't the case at the time. Only Gorski was provided as a source for the particular criticism that you are referring to, and therefore I was uncomfortable with claiming "scientist critics" when only one critic was referenced for that view. (I expect that there are many other criticisms of Martin, and perhaps some of those are the same as Gorski's, but the wording didn't hold with only a single reference to use). And Primero was removed because that whole sentence, as mentioned, was a serious BLP violation and had to be pulled, and was not what was written in the source. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Lone defender

I'm wondering if we can really call Marin the "lone defender" of Wilyman's thesis on the basis of a quote from Brull. It is sourced, but my difficulty is that the university has also been vocally supporting the awarding of the doctorate, and to be awarded a PhD the thesis had to pass two examiners. There have also been other people speaking up in its defense, but only on blogs and in self published sources. Brull is right, in that Martin is the most visible single defender in the media, (which is unsurprising given that he's also her supervisor, and therefore should be expected to defend the thesis and will also be the person asked to do so), but he isn't the only defender in the wiser picture. - Bilby (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Martin was an activist, now (uni) bureaucrat?

Some may now be of the opinion that Prof Martin has now become a cog in the wheel of the type of oppressor he has previously challenged. The Wilyman and anti-vax period in his new career at the University. Thus well worth a balanced critique of his two contradictory sides. Gongwool (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. I think the most likely thing is that he has spent so much time studying whistleblowers that he's lost objectivity. I am reminded of Bob Park's wise words: to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right. Martin seems to support people not on the basis of the validity of their arguments, but purely according to whether their ideas are rejected or not. He does not seem to grok that most ideas that struggle to find room in the mainstream scientific literature are excluded for excellent reasons. AIDS denialism and anti-vax bullshit being two obvious examples. Guy (Help!) 08:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes Guy I think you're correct. But additionally that some who made a career out of social science dissent theory are now despairing about a loss of audience (since global warming acceptance, environmental concerns and nuclear hazards etc are now considered mainstream) and seem stuck in the rebellions of the 70s. And a minority of SS prof are now desperate enough to target bottom feeders such as tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists looneys. Gongwool (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I find the discussion of the personal opinions about the subject of a BLP on the talk page to be misplaced and see it as likely to make NPOV, based on WP:Verify and and WP:RS, even more difficult for active editors to achieve. Please discuss your personal opinions, feelings and views elsewhere. SmithBlue (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP issue: inaccurate reflection of source.

{{BLP noticeboard}} currently WP:Brian Martin reads, "In a 2010 paper, Martin <deleted as per BLP>

Source "Anti-vaccination activists spruik PhD thesis as proof of conspiracy" reads in part, "Professor Martin conceded the peer-review verdict on the theory was “almost entirely negative” ..."

Source continues, "He has written several art­icles about the silencing of the theory, which was emphatically refuted in numerous well-­regarded scientific publications ... more than a decade ago."

Note this source is addressing the refutation of the OPV-AIDS theory ( ... more than a decade ago) and is not addressing Martin's work claiming collusion to silence. Current inaccurate statements denigrate Martin's professionalism. This would appear to possibly have legal consequences. Deleting immediately as per BLP. Please reflect source accurately when editing. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

saving reference 124.171.109.96 (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Have repaired the paragraph u were complaining about. (Rather than delete it like u did). The errors in it were no where near as great as the average Wilyman PHD citation! Jewjoo (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of new users who may happen by I quote the "Biography of Living Person" policy. 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. I followed this policy for this BLP violation. SmithBlue (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP: inaccurate reflection of source "support of Michael Primero"

The source does not support the claim that Martin has been criticised for his support of Primero. Please reflect sources accurately. This is the 3rd inaccurate reflection in this BLP found by this editor. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed paragraph exactly as per your complaint. Can't recall who produced the sentence in the first place, but it's not a blame game. Gongwool (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

When multiple BLP vios are introduced and defended by a small group of knowledgable contributors the issue becomes Disruptive Editing. So not a blame game but rather a flouting of community standards. SmithBlue (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

COI of IP?

EvergreenFir has made the following comments about user 124.171.192.238 (or SmithBlue??) who keeps on posting BLP (or any type of) complaint about the Martin article. EvergreenFir noted "For note, there's likely a conflict of interest here... the IP geolocates to around where the subject of the article lives. EvergreenFir (talk)" [1]. Also the IP (SB?) layed the boot into WP admins. I think this IP/editor confuses WP with linkedin!

I don't think this IP/editor (at the Gong??) will be happy until the article is a whitewash. I think it's worth noting that Martin published The Controvery Manual but his COI's wants any critique or controversy avoided on his WP page, Bit like 'do as I say, not as I do'. Martins papers are often very 'cherry-picked' re references to give biased impression - this assists in the longevity of any controvesy he's involved in. WP isn't perfect but I think this WP article is a hell of a lot more balanced and academic than Martin's typical writings or the student's crap he defends and oversees. Gongwool (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Did EvergreenFir decide that an east Australian IP is sufficient evidence of a CoI? I have no CoI and aim for NPOV. That I have tried for the last 6 weeks to bring attention to the multiple BLP vios in article should be celebrated by any editor seeking to improve WP. Addressing Gongwool's fantasies about my goals for this article - I will be satisfied if the article is based on accurate representations of reliable sources. I am unimpressed by the other claims and positions taken by Gongwool. They appear likely to function as disprutors of editing.SmithBlue (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I see EvergreenFir has been actively editing this article. If EvergreenFir has now decided to base EvergreenFir's beliefs around CoI on reasonable evidence, I suggest that EvergreenFir contact Bilby and ask about the misrepresentations of sources in this article, then compare those misrepresentations to the misrepresentations that I flagged on BLPN and ANI and then apologise to me for allowing my posts to talk pages to be deleted. If EvergreenFir would then address the disruptive effects of the editing practices of a small group on this page then that would better than Xmas. SmithBlue (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I said it's likely, but not certain. That statement was based on the nature of the edits and the location of the ip address. COIs are not inherently bad, but they can overlap with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS when an editor with a COI tries to "fix" things. That said, I do not think the IP is a sockpuppet. I've have this page on my watchlist from when there was more disruption, but I've not followed all the edits or discussions to be honest. Was more interested in making sure there was no vandalism or BLP violations. If there's a content dispute, I'd recommend WP:BLPN or an WP:RFC. Ping me if you need more. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Target on his back

I just read a couple of Dr. Martin's publications specific to HIV/AIDS origin and the polio vaccination theory. I got to say, everything I have ever read by this man, including these articles are as dry as toast with absolutely no point of view (POV) either way. He is truly a social scientist who confines himself to the social dynamics of scientific controversies. I didn't see him advocate for the vaccination source theory anywhere. He simply reported on the treatment of the theory by the opposing chimp-bite theorists. I don't have the interest in pursuing, but I suggest that he is being targeted by some groups in exactly the way he reports that advocacy groups attempt to kill off opposing theories that don't fit their agendas. That said, I'm glad to see his entry has been improved since I last looked at it, but am still disheartened that both the valuable content that was originally there is gone and that Wiki is being misused. Seabreezes1 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you misread the title of the page Seabreezes1. It's not called "the works of B Martin" it's called "Brian Martin". So it is not intended to represent his toast, it will include his actions, inactions, his effects on the Uni, his public statements, his effect on lowering academic standards, memberships etc. Gongwool (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Gongwool (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The lack of any mention by Gongwool of limiting edits on a BLP to accurate representations of Reliable Sources concerns me after the multiple misresresentations all too recent on this article. Does Gongwool agree that only Reliable Sources, accurately represented, will be used in Gongwool's mission to "include his actions, inactions, his effects on the Uni, his public statements, his effect on lowering academic standards, memberships etc." ? If so, I support and applaud Gongwools fervour! Or is Gongwool proposing that WP:Verify and WP:RS be suspended for this article? SmithBlue (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Martin has been criticised for continuing to support the theory even though it was disproved through genetic studies in 2008." accurate representation of source?

Woolgong: I request that you share the exact sentence or sentences supporting your edit that "Martin has been criticised". The current linked source is "Jenkins, Stephen H. (2015). Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 217–219." I also note that the page number originally given by you for this source (pg 218) is the only page that is not visible in google books. And that you subsequently changed the page range to inaccurate values.

• Diff of Woolgong's original (pg 218) edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Martin_%28social_scientist%29&type=revision&diff=707684826&oldid=707659471

• Diff of Woolgong changing pages to inaccurate range (pg 214-222):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Martin_%28social_scientist%29&type=revision&diff=709729777&oldid=709616114

• Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology at Google Books

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LkzTBgAAQBAJ&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=978-0-19-998104-5&source=bl&ots=X-BVc9JazB&sig=gzK_Z6FS-qBUJxCgeiwZE09HXds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik4If52cHLAhXDLqYKHYDuDZUQ6AEIITAC#v=onepage&q=217&f=false (To demonstrate my love of NPOV: I do see this source as perhaps grouping Martin inside the group of "a few diehards" who don't reject OPV-AIDS post 2008. But we'd need to read pg 218 to be clear.) SmithBlue (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue, you have answered that question yourself in your edit [2] where you confirm the text is accurate to page 217, 218, 219. Your raising this issue shows you are just trying to create an argument you have answered yourself. Stop targeting me. You are biased, obviously know Martin well and thus shouldn't be editing this article or commenting. As EvergreenFir raised about you before.

Your tone and repetitive chaos is tantamount to harassment of me and others re this article SmithBlue. You have caused chaos all over WP because you can't get your way with this article. If you/Martin don't like the facts in the article please apply to have it deleted. I will no longer communicate with you as you are trouble. Gongwool (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My way with this article is to limit it to material that is RS, Verify and Weight. If this causes me trouble ... . SmithBlue (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

My edit [3] is based on the assumption of good faith - the assumption that you are not deliberately misrepresenting sources to allow you to add inaccurate claims of criticism of Martin. Well let us all see what page 218 reads re Martin. You've obviously read it. What does it say? SmithBlue (talk) 04:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

SmithBlue, I have left a notice at your talk page regarding discretionary sanctions. The OPV AIDS hypothesis is convincingly disproven; it is now a fringe view (in fact, by now, extreme fringe to the point of crank). Your edit history shows a worrying tendency towards advocacy for this refuted hypothesis, including advocating grossly unreliable sources to "balance" our factual coverage of it. The OPV-AIDS hypothesis is refuted, and Wikipedia is not the place to change that. If you continue this advocacy you may be banned from editing in this area, or potentially blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether. Guy (Help!) 10:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I reject Guy's claim, 'Your edit history shows a worrying tendency towards advocacy for this refuted hypothesis, including advocating grossly unreliable sources to "balance" our factual coverage of it.'. My edit history shows no such thing. It shows one recent attempt to have OPV-AIDS presented in line with WP standards. If Guy (Help! is confident that I am editing disruptively then please make the case for that in the appropriate forum. In the meantime I will continue to edit in line with WP community standards.SmithBlue (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I have found the source of confusion and made my intentions explicit. If you or anyone have concerns in the future about my edits please make it explicit which edits and I will address your specific concerns. Going on about "worrying tendency" & "discretionary sanctions" on the basis of a single undiscussed edit diminishes the standing of all WP administrators. (Please leave your feelings about vaccination out of your admining and editing. Just for the record I support vaccination whole-heartedly and can understand the emotions that drive pro-vaccine activists. I do not see those emotions as justifying the suspension of Verify or RS however.) SmithBlue (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For heavens sake, Martin doesn't advocate for OPV or any other theory in his writings. He's a social scientist who dryly reports on the antics of scientific advocacy and polarization of issues. I suggest those who want to ruin his reputation by replacing factual items about the man with opinion focusing on one small piece of his body of work are only bringing into focus the reason whistleblowing is becoming increasingly important, i.e. because advocacy and astroturfing are hijacking science. FWIW: I'm putting back the factual sentence that his topics have included fluoridation, the origin of HIV/AIDs and nuclear power Seabreezes1 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Returning to Woolgong's "Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology" ,pg 218 changed to pgs 214-222, edit.

('If all other editors could confine themselves in this section, to the topic of this section alone, I would appreciate it.') The source clearly criticises Martin's argument. On this Woolgong was entirely accurate. However Woolgong deliberately changed the source from page 218 to pgs 214-222. Why? There is no reference to any matter of relevance to Brian Martin on pages 214, 215, 216, 220, 221 and 222. Gongwool has introduced inaccuracies into what was an accurate source. I ask again,"Why?"SmithBlue (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"Tools for critical thinking in biology" pg 218. Does it criticise Martin? Does it say that Martin is still promoting OPV-AIDS?

This section is reserved for addressing these two questions. Please do not disrupt editing by raising other issues in this section.

• Does it say that Martin is still promoting OPV-AIDS?

Jenkins writes in 2015, "Although Hooper and Martin are still promoting the tainted polio vaccine hypoth- esis, recent genetic work has convincingly disproven it.

• Does it criticise Martin?

Yes pg 218 does criticise Martin. Jenkins writes, "... Brian Martin continued to promote the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of AIDS as late as 2010 in a paper called “How to Attack a Scientific Theory and Get Away with It (Usually): The Attempt to Destroy an Origin-of-Aids Hypothesis.” In this paper, Martin dismissed Worobey’s work by stating “Scientists like Michael Worobey . . . have been trying to sink the polio vaccine theory for over a decade. Their arguments are theoretical but they have managed to establish the bushmeat theory [cut-hunter hypothesis] as the dominant view” (Martin 2010:216). This fails a basic criterion of effective argument, that a critic must rebut the specific evidence and logic presented by the other side. Worobey’s group had presented empirical data for rejecting the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis, not simply a theoretical argument. For Martin to make a convincing rebuttal, he would have to explain why the data and anal- yses of Worobey’s group were wrong. Instead, Martin ignored these data and analyses and simply mischaracterized Worobey’s argument as theoretical. This sentence near the beginning of Martin’s paper caused me to be highly skeptical of the remaining 20 pages (see Question 4)."

This source states that Martin is still promoting OPV-AIDS and the author criticises Martin's argument against the 2008 refutation. On page 219 Jenkins characterises those who still support OPV-AIDS as "a few die-hards". As I understand it "Tools" is a textbook. It can be seen to promote mainstream well-founded views. I have no problem with this source being considered for inclusion into the article. And I think the current use of it is fine. SmithBlue (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"The unproven theory" (OPV-AIDS)

This presentation of OPV-AIDS (even if supported by the cite) in Section/Research para 2, [4] is at odds with the presentation of OPV-AIDS in mainstream scientific literature. I suggest that "refuted" as used on the WP:OPV-AIDS article is both far stronger and also correct usage. Another still stronger option is to go with Jenkins "Tools for critical thinking ..." who writes, "recent genetic work has convincingly disproven it". It does have the downside of being incorrect usage as a hypothesis is not correctly described as "disproven". However it does better convey the current view of OPV-AIDS in published mainstream science. SmithBlue (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(professor)

Should the article be named "Brian Martin (social scientist)"? Professor is rather unspecific, and usually academics are disambiguated using their field and not their position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea Hob Gadling. Gongwool (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I do note that I find (social scientist) more impressive than (professor). (social scientist) certainly provides more authority to his critiques of social processes such as science. SmithBlue (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not for a scientist it doesn't. When I hear someone who promotes outsider ideas, such as the OPV AIDS hypothesis, characterized as a "professor" without giving a field, my quack alarm starts ringing, and I think, "probably this is an outsider with only superficial knowledge of the subject - a professor of law or engineering or social sciences - but certainly not an expert on the subject, i.e. a virologist. But he tries to pass himself off as an expert by palming his expertise on another subject. Or someone else did the palming for him."

I thought that immediately when I saw the header "Brian Martin (professor)", without knowing which fringe ideas he advocates. And I was right: he's a social scientist, not a virologist. That you actually find "social scientist" more impressive does not say anything about the article or Martin or his ideas but only about your faulty way of thinking about authorities. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your reasoning. In Australia, "Professor" is the highest academic rank, and his expertise is in the manner in which theories are promoted or denied. That you are getting the impression that he passes himself off as an expert in virology suggests that the article is currently doing a very poor job of explaining his research. - 09:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The height of academic rank is irrelevant. The connection between a person's field and the subject is relevant. When the subject belongs to, say, medicine, I would prefer, as a matter of course, any medical student to any professor of whatever non-medical field, except statistics. To accept a social scientist as an expert on medicine just because he has high social status within his own field is just plain silly and weird.

"That you are getting the impression that he passes himself off as an expert in virology" - you got that wrong. My first impression, from the page title, was "someone is trying to wrongly pass this person off as an expert in something specific". And indeed, you people I am discussing on this page are trying to do that. The article states that he holds some crackpot medical view, and some people here think that his status as an expert in something else somehow supports his view. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hob Gadling you are correct on all levels. The subject often has an unhealthy interest in medical unscience and thinks he holds rank in such. But he's as unqualified as the next social scientist. Changing the title of page, as you did, helped readers understand this oddity about the subject. Gongwool (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the problem with the article - it creates the impression that he is primarily commenting on the medical science, when his area and comments relate to the scientific process, the latter of which is open to a social science critique, much as it is open to philosophical and other critiques. - Bilby (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW I was talking to Hob Galding. Martin makes his own history, you can't try and change that. If one is concerned about weight, find some other topic to say nice things about Martin and put in some other section. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My concern is with potential mischaracterisations of his work emerging from how the article presents his research. I'm ok with the social scientist tag, but was surprised by the reasoning. - Bilby (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse in March 2016

As of March 20, 2016 SmithBlue's second complaint about this article on WP:Administrators'_noticeboard has annoyed/wound-up many there with the word count of the chaos totaling 6,936 words just on this his second complaint in 5 weeks. Also he sent out numerous of invitations to admins/editors to involve themselves in this article. But only one admin, DGG, came along and didn't have much to criticize saying "the actual material about the subject appears basically fair". Out of the many others, no other admin or editor found the need to come here and find fault in the article. So I go with DGG's opinion. There are many other cr*p biographies on WP with bucket loads of breaches to policy in them lowering the WP standard. Considering all the attention pointed toward this article I would say as it stands now it is certainly par-excellence in comparison. Finding wp:policy fault with it is overt-nitpicking. Gongwool (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

OPV-AIDS

It seems very important to both note Martin's support of OPV-AIDS and how it has been discredited, but I'm not sure how much more focus this needs, and I'm curious as to whether or not Martin still supports the theory. Has he published anything on the topic, or made a statement of support, since the 2010 paper, and is the 2010 paper supporting the theory, or discussing the process by which the theory was evaluated? - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So to answer the question, yes he does still publish, support and/or defend the hypothesis according to Jenkins (2015) and Hooper (late 2015),[5] OK I will concede that the Hooper cite is too primary but showing here on talk shows that Martin is still active in his beliefs. I don't think this paragraph is any sort of smear on Martin, it just shows he operates outside the scientific box and is proud and determined to do so. He's well aware of the science academic ramifications for doing such.Gongwool (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Martin has, since August 2015, added a link to a non-academically published paper that states, "The case study examines the creation of unreasonable public certainty about an unresolved scientific dispute", in its abstract. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/Dildine15.pdf

Martin's 2010 article can be found at http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/AIDS/

The 2010 paper does not in my reading provide any evidence of Martin promoting OPV-AIDS as the correct explanation of AIDS' origins. However Martin examines and critiques the actions of the opponents of the OPV theory. Misinterpreting this as "Martin supports OPV-AIDS" is unencyclopedic. SmithBlue (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that Martin's position on OPV-AIDS, in 2015, has not changed since Hooper praised him in 1999+/-, Lawrence Hammar in PNG praised him in 2004+/- and Jenkins criticized him in 2015. Just because you disagree with those 3 people doesn't mean you can have their comments/opinions removed. SmithBlue Please stop your chaos all over WP. Gongwool (talk) 04:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool: You seem to have some strange fantasy going on.

I am very happy to have anything negative about Brian Martin included in this article. As long as it meets Verify and RS and Weight. Please stop your ongoing attacks on myself and allow normal editing to proceed. SmithBlue (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a note about this SmithBlue's accusations. Half the stuff he's accusing me of was not introduced by or written by me, rather an admin. Brian's mate also has no GoodFaith re the book I introduced by Jenkins. I am sort of half happy with the article is at present, but accepting. But this determined editor (that I won't engage with) will never be happy. Enough already. Cheers, Gongwool (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gongwool please stop filling this Talk page with matters that do not relate directly to the editing of the article. If this is beyond you then please start a new section and confine your attacks on me to there. See below for the reality of how I approach editting on WP. Congrats on the Jenkin's book by the way. It provides a good mainstream up-to-date source for the current scientific view of OPV-AIDS. SmithBlue (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight of OPV-AIDS criticism.

Does the current Weight allotted to criticism of Martin around OPV-AIDS accurately & "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"? SmithBlue (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! A couple of things. Yes, I think that section has expanded a bit too much - the main points need to be kept, but it could possibly be trimmed back a tad, as a full description and history may be better dealt with at the main article of OPV AIDS hypothesis. It is important to note that it isn't just unproven, but discredited, and making mention of Marin's involvement of the theory makes sense, but we could probably merge a couple fo statements or leave them at the main article.

With that said, I think it works better under "research" than "criticism". Other than generally discouraging criticisms sections, most of his work should come under research, and noting his involvement is not necessarily criticism. While it is possible to criticize his alleged continued support after it was discredited in 2008, his involvement before that time isn't really something that is criticism, because there's nothing inherently wrong with supporting a potentially viable theory that hasn't been disproved. _ Bilby (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As a possible trim, how about:

Martin is known as one of the supporters of the theory of OPV-AIDS. The theory was promoted by Edward Hooper and Martin after its initial publication in Rolling Stone magazine, and Martin attended an AIDS Origin meeting and a press conference on OPV-AIDS at the Royal Society in London in 2000. In 2010, Martin published a paper in which he argued that "medical researchers had colluded to silence" the discredited OPV-AIDS hypothesis, and has said that although the peer-review process for the theory was almost "entirely negative", there can be situations where justice appears to be provided by the official processes, but "in many cases there is little corresponding substance". However, Martin was subsequently criticised for continuing to support the theory even though it was debunked through genetic studies in 2008. As late as Sept 2015 Martin still continues to publish papers supporting the now discredited OPV-AIDS theory on his website.

Chop it back a bit, and reduce the references to the core ones. Still make it clear that the theory is debunked and discredited, but leave history and details to the main article. - Bilby (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The relevance is that Martin seems to believe that anybody who he views as a whistleblower is right by default, even after it becomes plain that they are in fact a crank. Martin's mechanism for telling truth from bullshit is defective. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Bilby the reason why I added more to what you had already written or tweaked was because reader/s sternly refused to accept what had been cited about Martin. So adding 2 short sentences and cites helped to spell it out and K.I.S.S. for them. So with that in mind I don't support any changes to the OPVAIDS paragraph, it needs to be that detailed to be fully comprehended for them. Gongwool (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool. So what are the significant points that need to be included in the proposed version? - Bilby (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you misread what I said. I don't support changes, or a new version of OPVAIDS paragraph. Your desire to de-weight it will make it less comprehendable. Bye. Gongwool (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that you prefer the longer version, but I feel it would be helpful in finding consensus to know what you feel needs to be raised in that section. It might be possible to include the points that are missing while still addressing weight concerns, and I'd like to see if we can find that balance. - Bilby (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I say good for

'Martin is known as one of the supporters of the convincingly disproven theory of OPV-AIDS. The theory was promoted by Edward Hooper and Martin after its initial publica.....' Though "refuted" would work for me too. Others, Gongwool?

SmithBlue (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. I was a bit wary, a it wasn't, technically, refuted when Martin was first a supporter, but I agree that we need to make the theory's status very clear. - Bilby (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

How about "Brian Martin has supported the now refuted OPV-AIDS hypothesis since 19?? ..." (followed by cites for early support and "Dildane 2015" on BM website)?

BLP vio - Brian Martin,"And he also ****** the idea of ​​a vaccine-autism link." source appears non-RS

@Gongwool Please show RS for, "defends the idea of ​​a vaccine-autism link" Just because someone claims something does not mean that what they say is necessarilty accurate. And if it's not accurate then they are not a RS and then the claim must be removed. We can only put accurate statements about Martin into this BLP. As per BLP policy Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article ..." Please get consensus here before re-adding the material. Please note that Guy has not re-added the material that was recently removed. There may be a reason for this. I strongly suggest that you ask Guy for updated guidance in what material is suitable for a BLP. SmithBlue (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC) @Gongwool

• You are required by WP to reach consensus with the other editors on this article. That includes me.

Refusal to discuss appears to be Distruptive Editing (DE).

• Reliable Source: If the claim is not accurate then the source is not RS about Brian Martin. It could be RS about the claimant but that's not the article we are editting.

Reverting to material that is disputed as BLP vio appears DE.

SmithBlue (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: the use of that sentence is not needed. That he defends the link is obvious from his publications cited in the research section. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

College of Physicians of Philadelphia - RS re:OPV-AIDS?

There appear to be strong links between Hilary Koprowski [WP:Hilary Koprowski] and the College of Physicians of Philadelphia [WP:College of Physicians of Philadelphia]. Links include;

• Hilary Koprowski being a "Fellow of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, which in 1959 presented him with its Alvarenga Prize."
• Hilary Koprowski served as director of the Wistar Institute 1957 from 1991. The Wistar Institute is a 25 minute walk from the College of Physicians and is named after a former member of the College of Physicians. Unsurprisingly numerous other links between Wistar and the College exist. [6], [7], etc.

As Hillary Koprowski led the OPV trials that feature in OPV-AIDS hypothesis, relying on the College of Physicians of Philadelphia for an unbaised view of the standing of OPV-AIDS seems unwise. Can we find a view of OPV-AIDS from a source further from Koprowski? SmithBlue (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That was good digging! I already suspected such a connection when I saw the glaring falsehood on their page which was debunked already some time ago. Such misinformation written by Mr. Anonymous is not a reliable source. See the latest comments by Brian Martin on similar false arguments by Jenkins here:

http://www.aidsorigins.com/sites/all/files/pdfs/Martin16.pdf

However, that topic is merely an example case in his teaching about suppression of dissent. As an article on the OPV hypothesis already exists, just one or two sentences and a link to that OPV article would be appropriate.

BTW, for a recent public analysis of this bunch of possibly libellous Wikipedia articles, see: http://www.aidsorigins.com/sites/all/files/pdfs/Wikipedias_Strange_Certainty.pdf

I wish you people good luck. :-)

Harald88 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerns about BM Article

I have a number of concerns about this article, which I will discuss under the categories of structure and libel. I'll commence with structure, which I think will be less contentious.

I think the structure of the article could better conform to WP:LP. In particular, the heading which characterizes BM as a "social scientist" is not completely accurate, in that he is other things as well. He is a physicist, with refereed publications and a PhD in physics. I think a better description would be "Brian Martin (Academic)".

The opening paragraph, in my opinion, contains trivia which probably ought not be in the article at all, not according to WP:BLP. My suggestion would be for a brief statement along the lines of "BM is a noted Australian academic and writer". Leave the detail to later paragraphs.

I would suggest there be a paragraph on 'Education and professional career'. This is especially relevant, given that BM, as I understand, is internationally recognized within the fields of physics, peace research, suppression of dissent, and whistleblowing research.

I like the idea of having a paragraph entitled 'Research', given that this is what academics do. I would, however, merely list the areas of research expertise, rather than going into trivia.

I like the idea of having a paragraph entitled 'Publications' or perhaps 'Select publications'. Given that this is what academics do, it is quite logical to have such a section, and I believe it common in biographies to have such a paragraph.

Now to the element of libel. I believe there is material in this article which is defamatory, and there is a strong case that this should be removed immediately. I am referring of course to the assertions that BM is a supporter of the OPV-AIDS hypothesis.

I am aware that previous editors have provided sources for this assertion. I contend that these sources are defamatory, and thus what we have in this article is an instance of what is known as "secondary defamation" - it is still defamation (or libel).

Where I think the critique of BM is going awry is that there is confusion between support for the right of a person to express opinion, and support for that opinion. By way of illustration, there are numerous groups critiquing and even satirizing Islam as a religion. Think Charlie Hebdo. Yet one can support the right of publications to express an opinion, and that does not necessarily mean that in so doing you support that opinion.

In other words, one can support the right of publications to critique Islam, although that does not necessarily make you yourself Islamophobic. It's a crucial distinction. Voltaire reputedly summed up this principle by suggesting that "I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

What if the sources that are quoted can be regarded merely as opinion? It is a relevant question, given that opinion is normally not considered to be defamatory. If it is to be regarded as opinion, then this should not be regarded as a source of a Wikipedia article, given that Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. For instance, if you happen to locate a published opinion which states that "Joe Bloggs is incompetent" you cannot validly cite this opinion as a reliable source for a WIkipedia article.

Even if I am not correct about the secondary defamation of BM above, we have the issue of undue prominence given to this issue in the BM article.

OK. Where to we go from here. I think it is possible that there may be some consensus about my first general point about improvement of structure. Regarding the second point, although I think Wikipedia policies state that defamatory material should be removed immediately, I think that were I to do this, the changes would be immediately reverted.

Regarding the second point of defamation, I am not exactly sure what to do. Wikipedia is a wonderful experiment in citizenship participation - but this article seems to be an example of where the agreed WP policies are violated, and openly violated, then the system collapses.

Research17 (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As you say, there are sources which support the claim that Martin has backed the OPV-AIDS hypothesis. I agree that it may be that he supports the right to propose the theory rather than the theory itself, but in this case it is difficult to say that the distinction is there, while the sources are very clear that they see him as a supporter. (I went through them again, in case I didn't recall them correctly, but there isn't much room to doubt that they are making the stronger claim). There may be a weight issue, and it may be that those sources are incorrect, but that is going to be harder to evaluate.

Generally we follow the sources. We don't do it blindly, but if the sources are saying, consistently, that he has supported the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, then we either need to counter that with an alternative claim (has Martin published anything clarifying his position?) or we need a good reason for believing that those sources are either incorrect or unreliable. I'll look through Martin's recent publications and see if he's clarified his position, because that might help. - Bilby (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will go through your assertions point by point.

1. "There are sources which support the claim that BM has back the OPV-AIDS hypothesis". The crucial question is whether these are reliable sources. Wikipedia demands that in dealing with Biographies of Living Persons that they must be. Further, if the sources are defaming BM, the to repeat these allegations on a Wikipedia is a form of libel or defamation. Technically called secondary defamation. The Wikipedia policy is that such material must be removed immediately.

2. "I agree that it may be that he support the right to propose the theory rather than the theory itself ..." Yes, it is a crucial distinction. But the article suggests that he is a supporter of OPV-AIDS.

3. " ... it may be that those sources are incorrect". Yes, this is an important admission, and thanks for this. However, if there is doubt as to the reliability of sources, then they ought not be used. Wikipedia policy is that articles must be based on reliable sources.

4. " ... if the sources are saying, consistently, that he has supported the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, then we need to counter with an alternate claim ... or we need a good reason for believing that those sources re either incorrect or unreliable". I'd suggest, however, that the burden of proof is not for BM or any other person to prove that the allegations are incorrect. The burden of proof is for those making the allegations to substantiate the allegation. At the moment it seems to me that all we have are allegations.

5. I note in passing that one stage it is suggested that BM attended an OPV-AIDs seminar, as if this in itself demonstrates support for a theory. I've attended seminars in my life-time of people supporting the theory that there are widespread alien abductions since WWII. This doesn't necessarily mean that I support this theory.

6. What really interests me is why is this OPV-AIDS stuff really in the article at all? Is this really all that important? And why the editors who inserted this think this is important?

Research17 (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and work through this and see if we can figure things out, but as with most things on Wikipedia, it is complex. :) Wikipedia always follows the sources. If the sources say that something is true, and those sources are reliable, then we have a strong initial case for including that claim. There are reasons for this, and they go back to the fundamentals of how Wikipedia functions, but that's a bit too much of a diversion. So in this case, what we need to ask is if we are adequately representing what the sources say, if those sources are reliable, and if there is a contrary view that is worth including.

I removed one of the four sources saying that Martain was a supporter of OPV-AIDS, as it didn't seem to really support that claim. The three are:

• Jenkins (2015) "Although Hooper and Martin are still promoting the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis, recent genetic work has convincingly disproven it... Worobey's team published their genetic comparison of HIV samples in 2008, but Brian Martin continued to promote the tainted polio vaccine hypothesis for the origin of AIDS as late as 2010"
• Hammer (2004) "Supporters of the OPV thesis were roundly shut out of the much ballyhooed Royal Society of London conference held in 2000, which is detailed nicely here and which has been detailed elsewhere in print and by Hooper himself through his main Internet patron, the sociologist, Brian Martin."
• Hooper (1999) "Thereafter it was a disparate third wave, including science policy expert Brian Martin ... who gave the theory further publicity and credibility."

They do seem to suggest that he was a supporter. Certainly there is no ambiguity in Jenkins 2015, and it doesn't seem to be an unreasonable interpretation of the other two, although not quite as unambiguous. As far as I can tell those are reliable sources, a journal, a first person account, and a book through OUP).

I haven't found anything from Martin yet which makes a clear distinction between supporting the theory and supporting Hooper. Do you know of something where he draws this distinction in regard to his own views? - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I cam across Martins' response to Jenkins' claim[8]. In that he clearly denies Jenkins, so I've modified the wording and added Martin's denial and a link to his article on the topic. - Bilby (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Colleagues. Last August, I wrote that there were contentious and less contentious aspects of the BM article. I suggested that the content be re-structured, with a shorter Intro, and paragraphs for Education and Career, Research, and Publications. That's fairly standard fare for an academic. I also plan to include a paragraph called Controversy, probably after Research, which would reference some of the concerns raised regarding BM. I plan to commence on this in a few days time. Any thoughts most welcome. Research17 (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

that is unlikely to go well given your remarks above but you are free to try. Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback. All that I can say is that I live in hope. But, apart from that, given that I'm basically suggesting a change in structure rather than substance, I don't think that there should be any necessary objection. For instance, the intro would simply state: "Brian Martin (born xxx) is a noted Australian academic, with recognized expertise within the fields of theoretical physics, astrophysics, peace and nonviolence, politics, and whistleblowing research". Obviously there would be references for each item. And maybe the Intro should say something about his current position. Now, I'm aware Martin does have his critics. What I propose to do is to have a specific paragraph entitled Controversy or perhaps Criticism, and there to give details of what his critics have to say. What do you think of this? Research17 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally it is not considered best practice to have a dedicated section based on criticism - instead it is better to embed that into a general account, or to mix good and bad into a more general "retpion" or "impact" type of section. - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thoughts: I think there's an element of axe-grinding and overkill to the criticism. If someone spends time in public, then they're probably going to be criticized at some point, but is it necessarily due weight and appropriate for BLP? Some of these are also sourced to relatively new and high-volume editorialish media, particulary Gorski in scienceblogs.com. I would recommend removing duplicate sentences covering certain topics, at least, so it doesn't look like it's pushing an agenda. II | (t - c) 06:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This article was subject to some pretty severe partisan warfare early this year. See ANI here from Feb 2016 and this epic thread a month later. There is legit criticism of Martin but it got pushed a bit too far in the face of efforts to erase it, as far as I can tell. However, Gorski is a fine source for the criticism. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't so much partisian warfare, as people trying to get this reverted from the hit piece it had been turned into and being ignored. I think it is much more balanced now, but I'm certainly open to discussion in regards to both directions, as balance is tricky. - Bilby (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick response to the above - thanks for the useful feedback again. I concur. Although the BM article may be not as bad as it used to be, it is still highly problematic, and can reasonably be described as an attack article on Martin. Some of the "criticism" of BM is, in my opinion, simply quite ignorant. For instance, critizing BM for acting as a supervisor for a particular doctoral thesis, I think, reveals a fundamental ignorance about how Higher Research Degrees work, as well revealing a certain level of malice by various editors and administrators. The role of the supervisor is to ensure that a thesis is in a format so that it can be sent to examiners. It is the examiners who determine whether the work is of scholarly merit and scholarly integrity. The supervisor does not necessarily need to agree with the views of the student nor the proposition being put forward by the student. For instance, in political science, a particular PhD student may be a Marxist, may work from a Marxist perspective, and may be putting forward a particular Marxist hypothesis. Does the supervisor need to be a Marxist or agree with the proposition being put forward by the student? Not at all. In proposing to edit the BM article, I want avoid a wiki-war, and thus at the moment not quite sure how to proceed. How to deal with malicious editors, and, even more seriously, with malicious administrators, is a real challenge for Wikipedia. Final point. I found the article here interesting: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/wikipedia-covering-true-origin-aids. Just in passing, my reading is that BM nowhere indicates that he does specifically support the OPV-AIDS hypothesis - my reading is that BM is merely arguing for a Kuhnian philosophy of science, wherein this is an openness to ideas. However the main thing is that the greenmedino article does have some interesting things to say about the flaws within the way Wikipedia operates. The greenmediainfo does not use the word "bullying", but it seems to me that this is quite apt in describing what is happening with the article. I will probably leave editing the BM article as a task for the New Year! Research17 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

With these remarks it seems to me that the likelihood that you could restructure this article in a way that complies with NPOV and that would get consensus is extremely low and I recommend you do not try. You are free to do as you like of course. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read the Green Media Info piece - it doesn't help much. Mostly it is a complaint about a separate article, with only a few comments specific this one. Mostly it is a mix of unsubstantiated allegations combined with a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing expectations and why they are in place.

The comments regarding the role of a supervisor are only partially correct. It is true that a supervisor does not need to fully support a student's stance, but a supervisor is still responsible for doing a lot more than checking format.

Otherwise, I'm very happy if you want to proceed by suggesting changes here, as opposed to changing the article directly. I'm happy to comment if you take that path. - Bilby (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin's complaint about this wikipedia page

Since I last posted here, I notice that there has been some discussion elsewhere on Wikipedia re the BM article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_223 (I think I may have posted there after the closing of discussion, and apologies for this). Anyways, the gist of my contribution was that I believe the BM article is still disorganized. My suggestion is to make the article more concise and factual. For instance, I'd suggest something along the following lines: Introduction BM (born xxxx) is an Australian academic and writer, with research interests in blah-blah-blah. He currently is a professor of blah-blah at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Professional career BM initially trained in mathematics and physics. He served as a mathematician with the Australian National University, and since xxxx has served as a professor in blah-blah with the University of Wollongong. Recognition BM has been an invited contributor to a range of international encyclopedia and dictionaries, including blah-blah-blah. In 2002, Australian Museum scientists named the species blah-blah in honour of BM's work in the suppression of dissent. Community involvement BM has been actively involved in the not-for-profit organization Whistleblowers Australia over a long period of time, initially as President and more recently as International Director. In conjunction with Whistleblowers Australia, he runs a website in support of whistleblowers. Select publications Blah-blah. Now, the above might be called a minimalist approach, which I realize is at odds with the more maximalist approach that I previously argued for. Reason for my change of opinion? On reflection, I think the maximalist approach may not be practical. Research17 (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious you have been influenced by Martin's written rant, that you indirectly linked to above, in wanting to make those changes. But I advise against being a puppet for him, as his paper about himself is just another self-serving piece of unacademic clap-trap impersonating research. I couldn't put it better myself, quote: "Martin's essay ("Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses") reads to me like a standard-issue complaint about his Wikipedia page, dressed up (not very convincingly) as an academic work. If one were seriously trying to produce a scholarly study assessing the impact of editorial bias on Wikipedia, or the ways in which our policies work or fail to work, then the last thing one would do is to focus anecdotally on one's own Wikipedia article. The essay's most controversial claims are cited (using academic style) to decidedly non-scholarly sources such as Wikipediocracy and aidsorigins.com (a clearinghouse for HIV-related pseudoscience and conspiracy theories) (WP:BLP violation removed)." 101.161.162.144 (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)— 101.161.162.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Removal of information regarding Recognition

I note that Jytdog removed a paragraph I wrote regarding a species named after BM, citing lack of secondary references. Now I should state that I believe there is sufficient secondary evidence - however, in the interests of seeking consensus on this, what I propose to do is to repost the paragraph, this time with more references. A guick search-engine survey reveals some 250 entries for Polycheles Martini, so this should be quite do-able. I will also look again at the language in most paragraph. I believe that I have stayed within the confines of merely giving the facts. However I will look at this again. Does anyone have any objection to the above course of action? Research17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research17 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

it might be DUE but the content you added was promotional. no need to repeat his full name and title like it is being announced at an award ceremony for pete's sake. it doesn't need a zillion refs but independent ones would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Jytdog. Much appreciated. What I propose to do is to wait another week or so before re-submitting, to allow for other comments. Research17 (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

again you could just post better, and better sourced, content here on the talk page to give people something to chew on. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the further and valuable input, Jytdog. I note that you say "no need to repeat his full name and title like it is being announced at an award ceremony ...". That's fair point, and yet naming a species after a person is very similar to an award, in that it is honourific recognition. What I do in the posting is to quote directly from the refereed article. My rationale for this is that it is important to be precise, especially as this is a highly contested article. Anyways, in order to seek consensus on this, what I am proposing to do is to still use the quotation, but to truncate this. I think that Jytdog does have a valid point, insofar as we already know, for instance, that BM is from the University of Wollongong and that this is in New South Wales. I would welcome any further opinion or debate on this. Research17 (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is not an awards ceremony. It is also would be obvious that the subject of the article is the person for whom the organism was named and if anybody doubts it they could check the ref.Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for that thoughtful input, Jytdog. Your input is always highly valued. What I might do is to wait another few days to see if there are any thoughts from the wider Wikipedia community. Research17 (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I note there have been no further comments in response to my posting a few days ago, but I want to persevere in attempting to reach consensus. I want to put forward two principles or strategies which we may agree should apply, in broad terms, to the BM article: (a) That within the BM article, there should properly be both "Criticism" and "Recognition" Sections. This is a matter of even-handedness, and I understand such an approach would also be broadly in accord with the WP:NPOV. (b) That, within the Sections "Criticism" and "Recognition", we should not merely state the item, but also explain what it is about for a reader. I note that this is broadly what has already been happening with the "Criticism" Section, and so I don't think this suggestion should be controversial. I look forward to comments. Research17 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were going to propose another version of the content for discussion. are you not going to? Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Was thinking the preferable option would be, initially, to see if we can settle on agreed principles or strategies. i.e. work towards consensus. Research17 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

There is no need for this palaver. The sources are perfectly adequate. Two editors think that the sources are OK, one does not. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC).

The issue, as has been stated from the first comment here, is not the refs but the content generated from them. Please read what has actually been written here. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that contribution Xxanthippe. My starting point is WP:Con, which stipulates that "consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method for achieving our goals". Further at 1.2, the above policy indicates that discussion, and particular on the relevant Talk page, is one practical way of working towards consensus. Research17 (talk) 01:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note. A link to this page has been placed on my [9], where I have been falsely accused of WP:Stalking. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

Just catching up on this talk page. I think that one of the subtle problems with the BM page is that the intro paragraph may at times have been too cluttered. Thus my suggestion that there be two sections within the BM article, "Criticism" and "Recognition" Sections. As I've argued before, this is a matter of even-handedness, and I understand such an approach would also be broadly in accord with the WP:NPOV. The suggestion I made with that within the Sections "Criticism" and "Recognition", we should not merely state the item, but also explain what it is about for a reader. As argued previously, I think this is broadly what has already been happening with the "Criticism" Section, and so I don't think this suggestion should be controversial. Any thoughts? Research17 —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for poor paragraphing with the above contribution. But the gist is looking for feedback on the suggestion regarding the proposed two Sections. Research17 (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no need for two Reception paragraphs, a positive one ("Recognition") and a negative one ("Criticism"). Usually, they are both in the same paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hob Gadling (talk). Not sure, however, how well that would work. The "Criticism" Section in the BM article is focused on negative response to BM. Now, this is fair enough that this should be included, and explained. However, I'm not sure that discussion of the recognition of his research would fit in here, given the nature of the Section. BTW, the Wikipedia Guideline on academics WP:ACADEMIC indicates that a key aspect of notability is that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", and the Guideline then goes on to say that wide citation is a common indicator of impact. I would suggest being an invited contributor to international publications would be an another indicator. Now, it so happens that BM satisfies both of the above indicators in a number of fields, and thus it is relevant to mention these the article. I'm not quite sure where this should be included, if not under a Recognition section. Perhaps simply under the existing "Research" paragraph? My feeling is still for separate sections for Recognition and Criticism. Thoughts? Research17 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"given the nature of the Section" - If the positive stuff is included, and the title changed to "Reception", the nature of the section changes. This is not a problem in other articles.

"a key aspect of notability is" - This is a category error. As WP:N says, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." This is the purpose of the criteria you quoted from WP:ACADEMIC. It does not mean one should (or should not) include that stuff in the article, only that one should consider it when deciding whether to have the article in the first place.

Sure, his published contributions to research should be listed, in the "Publications" section. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

They should not be listed unless there are ones that have attracted special attention. All that is needed is a phrase stating his broad filed of research. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC).

Why in particular? With other academics we tend to list major publications, although I certainly wouldn't want to see us list everything an academic has published. - Bilby (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, point taken Hob Gadling about the Guideline. And yes, I can see the value of your suggestion about simply having a "Reception" Section, which would include both positive and negative responses. However, just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, would not this result in a very large Section, especially given that some material currently in both the Intro and in the Research Section arguably would fit better in such a Section? Research17 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So what? (You are right: the crustacean trivia definitely does not belong in the intro, since it is not a defining feature. And the "Martin has been criticised for being a supporter of the now debunked.." paragraph is not really research. Both should be moved to the Reception section.) Preventing sections from getting "very large" by putting material that belongs there in sections where it does not seems rather disingenious to me. It defeats the purpose of having sections in the first place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hob Gadling and others. I should say that in general terms I am supportive of the suggested structure of 1. Intro, 2. Research Section, 3. Reception, and 4. Publications for the BM article, although I may put some further arguments as to why Reception ought be broken up. And I think there is also agreement that there is material in both Intro and Research Sections which ought, more appropriately, be included in the Reception Section.

Just a general question, however, to Hob Gadling. If the Reception Section is to include both positive and negative responses to BM, how would you envisage this Section be structured? For instance, I would think positive responses and then negative responses, although I'd be interested in your take. Research17 (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Just write it any old way, I'd say. If there is still room for improvement, it can be done afterwards. It's a wiki. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough,Hob Gadling. However I suppose where I am coming from is an attempt to avoid an "edit-war", through the slow process of building of consensus. Now, I think we are gradually making progress. For instance, I was initially aggrieved by the reversion of my edit by Jytdog, but I think I can now see some of his/her concerns. I think there may be also consensus emerging that the detail in the Intro more properly belongs in further Sections. I still lean towards having separate Recognition and Criticism Sections (as opposed to the more general Response Section), not the least because critics of BM might complain that we are watering down the importance of critical response to him. I would be interested in what other people think on this. The other suggestion I would like to flag is that, given the research fields of BM actually go beyond social science as such, it might be appropriate for this article to be simply named "Brian Martin (Academic)", with a redirect from "Brian Martin (Social Scientist)". Again, would be interested in any opinion on this. Research17 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Academic? No. That would suggest that he is also an expert on those other subjects, when he is actually only dabbling in them and contradicting the real experts, without real understanding. As an example, the astronomer Fred Hoyle thought that Archeopteryx was a fake because it was evidence for evolution and evolution did not fit his steady-state model of the universe - but every paleontologist knew that was bullshit. Brian Martin is a similar case. When academics think they can revolutionize fields that are not their own, it should not be suggested that expertise is not important, that one can study whatever one wants and be an instant expert on everything else too. Actually the Dunning-Kruger effect is at work in such cases. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

An addition - since my contribution above was reverted: BM has supported Andrew Wakefield, whose article contains the word "fraud" about thirty times. Apparently, this is not in conflict with WP:BLP. So, why am I not allowed to point out on a Talk page that BM is contradicting the real experts, the medical doctors, who virtually unanimously agree that Wakefield's results are invalid and threaten the health of millions of people by instilling unjustified fears of vaccination? What makes a social scientist more competent at medicine than the experts? Why should his actual field be hidden in the word "academic", suggesting that he somehow knows what he is talking about (ooh - he is an academic! so some academics say this and others say that...)? If there is some small part in my contribution that is, in the opinion of one editor, in conflict with WP:BLP, why not just delete that part and leave the rest? Which part is it? Why am I not allowed to contradict a bad idea using accepted effects such as the Dunning-Kruger one and accepted fallacies such as argumentum ad verecundiam? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Hob Gadling - your comments are much appreciated. Just to concentrate upon a few points:

1. Regarding the issue of BM as an academic, I note the Australian OED defines "academic" as "a teacher or scholar in a university or institute of higher education". BM quite demonstrably does meet this definition. I also note that BM does have recognized expertise in a number of fields. For instance, I understand that he holds a Masters and PhD in physics, has scholarly publications within this area, and indeed has taught in this area. I understand BM's more recent appointment as Professor of Social Inquiry was made on the basis of scholarly publication. This is unusual, although not unheard of. For instance, it is not unheard of that academic research positions will list as a pre-requisite a "PhD or the equivalent thereof", or words to that effect. So, I think there is a reasonable case that it may be more appropriate for BM to be identified within Wikipedia as an "academic", rather than as a "social scientist". I should add that I do understand the point about argumentum ad verecundiam, and this is one of the reasons I argue that, for this article, critics of BM be given plenty of space to explain the criticism and controversy regarding BM.

2. Regarding the issue of support for Andrew Wakefield (AW), I've had quick read of BM's 2015 paper 'On the suppression of vaccination dissent', in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics (21,1,143-157). My impression is that BM's position is a libertarian one, supporting free academic debate, and the thrust of his criticism is on the "excessive" nature of the treatment which has been meted out to AW. Indeed BM does acknowledge that the position that vaccination is a public good is the orthodox one. Having said that, I readily admit that I am not fully around this topic, and I may be wrong in my take on this. The fact that there is controversy around this, however, is again precisely why I think that critics of BM should be given plenty of scope to explain the criticism and controversy regarding BM within the BM article. And the best way to do this, I think, is for there to be a specific Section set aside for this, as indeed there is now, entitled Criticism, with another Section called Recognition. But the main point is that critics of BM should be given full opportunity to explain the case.

Look forward to any response to the above. Research17 (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to always ping me, I have a watchlist.

1. We do not have an article on everybody who has a PhD or Master in something, only on those who are notable. Martin is notable as a social scientist but not notable as a physicist, so "social scientist" is the most appropriate disambiguation.
2. So Martin doesn't think Wakefield is right, he only thinks Wakefield has it tough? He wants scientists to be more lenient on fraud? Ok, that may be so (BTW, I can stand him even less than before if that is the case, because supporting the underdog instead of supporting the position with the best evidence is alien and detrimental to science), but this is relevant the the question at hand - acedemic or social scientist - how? --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hob Gadling for that contribution. I note that you do hold strong views regarding BM, and I for one would support your right to hold those opinions. And the fact that people such as yourself do hold strong views is why I'd be inclined to argue for a distinct Criticism Section in the BM article, in order to give folk such as yourself full scope to express your views. Your point about an acedemic (sic) is an interesting one. I'd like to look more closely at Wikipedia policy on this, and also to consider what you've previously written, before I comment. In the meantime, and in the interests of working towards consensus, I'd be interested in the views of any other Wikipedians on these issues. Research17 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I know that silence doesn't necessarily mean consent, but nevertheless I think that some consensus may be beginning to emerge in some areas, such as the need for some material in the Intro Section to be transferred to other Sections, the need for both positive and negative responses to BM, and the need for the positive and negative responses to be explained. I do have concerns about the disambiguation phrase (academic v social scientist) and about whether the Criticism Section should be renamed Reception, but will come back to that later. I thought I might raise the minor issue of BM's past membership with the Australian Vaccination Network and the Skeptics Society, as mentioned in the Intro. If this information is to be included in the BM article (and I'm not really sure that it should) then perhaps it might be more appropriate for this to be transferred into a separate section, such as, say, "Community Involvement" or "Organizational Involvement". The advantage of this is such a Section might also logically contain information about BM's involvement in Whistleblowers Australia. If, however, the information about membership of the Network and Society is included as criticism of BM, then perhaps this ought to be logically included in the Criticism Section, and the nature of the criticism made more explicit. Research17 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Being a member anywhere is neither a criticism, nor should it be subject to one. I suggest you look at other articles about people. Memberships, fellowships and so on are always part of sections called "Life" or something like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the relevance of being a member of the Australian Vaccination Network and the Skeptics Society is. Academics will join all sorts of groups. Being an committee member or organiser might be relevant, but just joining seems insignificant. - Bilby (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? AVN is a group that attacks parents of children who die from vaccine preventable disease. No reputable person would touch them with a ten foot pole. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Martin (social scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161129082741/http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/News/Skeptics-name-winners-of-Bent-Spoon-award to http://www.pharmacynews.com.au/News/Skeptics-name-winners-of-Bent-Spoon-award

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing history of this article

The subject of this article, Brian Martin, has published a history of this article, and uses it as an example of why he believes Wikipedia is unreliable. I thought it should be mentioned here. Daask (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Martin, Brian (2017). "Persistent Bias on Wikipedia". Social Science Computer Review. SAGE. doi:10.1177/0894439317715434. ISSN 0894-4393.

See Talk:Brian Martin (social scientist)/Archive 1#Martin's complaint about this wikipedia page. The IP's contribution, starting with "It's obvious you have been" seems to say it all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• should we cite that piece in "other journal articles"? This is so weirdly self-referential... I kind of think we should do.

it is remarkable to me that somebody took the time to write an article about the editing of their own article in WP, and that it was published. I checked the COI declaration in the article and it says "Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article except for those indicated in the article itself" The article body says "To illustrate techniques and responses, I use a particular Wikipedia page as my primary example: the entry about myself in the first half of 2016. My central purpose is to illustrate methods for imposing and maintaining bias. Entrenched bias on some other pages is far more extensive and serious than the treatment of my page. My page is convenient for analysis because the volume of data is smaller and the trigger for rewriting is obvious."

I wonder what the discussion with reviewers was like. Am just amazed that something like this published. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it fits there rather well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, will do this later. I was in the process of fixing up the citations to his papers in that section, which have a bunch of WP:COPYLINK problems that must be fixed. Will add this when I fix those.. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS again

User:Bilby about your edit note here, we have been through that already Talk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur)#Scienceblogs where the same objection about Gorski and BLPSPS got no consensus. Discussion earlier on the Wolfe page referenced this RFC about the source.

The consensus is clear that SMB/Gorksi are fine for debunking claims, but the content needs to be focused on the claims,not the person.

The content was about the person's claims, not about the person.

It is a drain of community resources to have the same conversation over and over. Please self revert or explain very clearly how the content was about the person and not about their actions or claims. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The use of Gorski here was to express an opinion about the actions of a person, not address a specific belief which they expressed. Gorksi is very well entitled to the opinion that Wilyman wrote "misinformation and conspiracy theories", but it needs to be expressed as Gorski's opinion - it can't be expressed, as in this case, as an unqualified statement of fact. - Bilby (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC):

Martin's disputation of the Agence Science Presse claim.

Hello everyone, In a recent article in the journal Social Science Computer Review, Brian Martin specifically rejects the Agence Science Presse claim quoted here. Writing explicitly about this quote he states, "I have never defended this idea." The Social Science Computer Review is a peer-reviewed journal that is well-regarded (it has an impact factor over 2). The editorial board is international and very strong. The Agence Science Presse article provides no evidence to support the claim made that Martin defends the autism-vaccine link. Given that this article is a biography of a living person and this person has explicitly challenged a claim presented here by Agence Science Presse, Wikipedia should, at a minimum, include the quote from Martin challenging this claim. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

So we have a bit of an edit war going on over adding or not adding the last sentence below.

In 2014, Martin published a paper characterizing criticism of Andrew Wakefield's discredited claims about vaccines and autism as being "suppression of vaccination dissent". In 2016 Agence Science Presse, reporting on the Wilyman matter, said that Martin "also defends the idea of a vaccine-autism link." However, Martin disputes this claim stating, "I have never defended this idea."

References

The high quality indpendent source here, Agence Science-Presse, doesn't need to provide evidence. We rely on high quality secondary sources to state things for us. So this is not a valid objection to it. I understand that this is what Martin says, but that is irrelevant here in WP. The Gorski citation makes it very clear that Martin has attacked the critics of Wakefield and characterized what is harmful pseudoscience as "dissent". Gorksi actually comes out and characterizes this as "defense of Andrew Wakefield". (this is not in the content, and perhaps should be)

In my view, because the source for Martin's refutation is not independent, a) the statement has no context other than the one Martin gives it, and we cannot create one per SYN; and b) this is UNDUE, as it lacks independent secondary sources.

I would consider adding something like this if it came from an independent source. But this is not.

On top of that, this paper is not something we should be citing as a reference anywhere in WP. Per discussion above, placing this source in the Works section would be OKish. (Martin has done his best to publicize it, citing it in his self-published book (note 34), tweeting about it, posting a link to it himself at the Tasmanian Times press releases page... but I don't see where anybody has picked up this very ... odd paper. Here are the only citations google scholar shows for it.) Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No response, and not from User:Xxanthippe who reverted. OK then, I will start an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

Yesterday I noted that Reference 1 by David Gorski in a defunct blog with no editorial control and a disreputable history, on which so much reliance is put by User:Jytdog, was not reachable on the web. Today I find it is. That was a nice surprise. The quote by Gorski relevant to User:Jytdog's claim that Martin supports the vaccination-autism link is one has to wonder how much Martin buys into antivaccine pseudoscience. Quite a lot, I suspect. The words are weasily enough for Gorski to avoid an action for defamation as they do not amount to a clear allegation that Martin held such a view. User:Jytdog has misrepresented the source. I add three links [10] [11] [12] to this talk page as they contain matters relevant to it.

References

Xxanthippe (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC).

It is not a defunct blog. The links works fine for me. It is used widely in WP for FRINGE stuff like this and has been discussed to death. Look up the page where it is discussed. Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

defunct? It ceased in 2017, an unencrypted website that does not supply ownership information and which places cookies on client computers without permission (users beware). A much more serious matter is the misrepresentation of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

So you are saying that because Gorski moved his writing from http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/ to https://respectfulinsolence.com/ that the blog is "defunct". Hm. There is no response to something that silly. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to retain Ref 3 is clear. Refs 1 and 2 and other blog material must be removed immediately under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced (a policy not a guideline). I have done this. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC).

That edit is against widespread consensus with respect to the WP:PSCI policy as has already been described above. If you missed it do see the RfC here. Do not be overly bold here. Jytdog (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

If you like, we can throw yet another RfC here for Gorski. The outcome is very obvious to me anyway, as WP is reality based and Gorksi is widely used in WP in just this way, but that would be the far wiser move for you. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A blog-free version of this BLP is here[13]. It was reverted by User:Jytdog after 3 minutes exposure. One of the two that I placed in it has been usefully updated by User:Bilby. User:Jytdog makes the bizarre claim that an RfC on veganism [14]] overrides the WP:BLP policy that contentious material must be removed immediately under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. The blog-free version is consistent with Wikipedia policy. The blog containing version is not. Contrbutors are invited to comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

So, you

• made the wrong claim that the source is offline,
• called the source "disreputable" for some unclear reason that probably has to do with guilt by association,
• added three links to discussions your side lost,
• built an argument on an unjustified conflation of "to defend" with "to buy into". (This is not about Martin buying into the position in question, it is about him defending it by attacking the scientists who do not adhere to it.)

All this, predictably, did not work. So now you retreat to the position "it's a blog". --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It seems to me that if a BLP can be written without recourse to questionable sources like blogs, that is all to the good as it will increase the perceived reliability of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

RfC on statement by article subject and its source

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure The result is Keep, not so much on the basis of the overwhelming arithmetic prevalence of the Keep suggestions but mainly on their strength.
This RfC was about whether or not a specific statement should be included in the article. The statement was made by Martin; its source is a text he's written himself.
An editor opposing the inclusion claimed there's a conflict of interest in citing a piece written by Martin himself, a piece that moreover is about his article in Wikipedia. Another editor characterized the same piece as a "one-man whinge" about "other people's biographies" in Wikipedia.
We can approach this by assuming that everything Oppose editors, and not only them, state about Martin is true, i.e. about his stance on autism, vaccines, "Wikipedia bias," etc. We can further assume that Martin is trying to exonerate himself from accusations and possibly lying. (There are all completely hypothetical assumptions.) Yet, even so, the issue here is not about promoting a person's possibly false and potentially harmful ideas; it's about whether or not to include a statement he made about his own stance on those ideas, and specifically the idea about the ostensible link between vaccines and autism. Martin claims, in the contested statement, that he "never defended this idea." Now, whether that is true or not is to be found in the cited sources, which editors are obliged to supply, given the context. If Martin's denial does not reflect reality, then we would have on one side in the article the presumably overwhelming evidence that Martin's fibbing and on the other side Martin's denial. But we cannot, within the rigid framework of WP:BLP, censor a person's statement made in defending himself, a typical case, incidentally, whereby the use of a primary source is not just permitted but welcome.
And we can dismiss the claims about "conflict of interest." Accepting those claims as a guide for Wikipedia would mean that any statements made by an accused party would not be allowed in articles: An entirely absurd, if not dangerous, notion from both the encyclopaedic and the judicial perspective. -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Should we include the bolded sentence below, or not? Please give reasons. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Content

In 2014, Martin published a paper characterizing criticism of Andrew Wakefield's discredited claims about vaccines and autism as being "suppression of vaccination dissent". In 2016 Agence Science Presse, reporting on the Wilyman matter, said that Martin "also defends the idea of a vaccine-autism link." However, Martin disputes this claim stating, "I have never defended this idea."

References

!Votes

• Keep I think in any BLP, if an accusation is made against the subject, and that subject has specifically refuted the accusation in a reliable source, it seems reasonable to include something stating that the subject has denied whatever they were accused of. - Bilby (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep for balance, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep reference 3. as clearly explained above. It is from a refereed journal with editorial oversight, so is a reliable source. Reference 1. is a from a defunct blog without editorial oversight and therefore not considered to be a reliable source. It is a dead link on my browser. Can anybody provide evidence that this source exists or ever existed? It should be deleted. Reference 3 is an anonymous unsourced comment made with no indication of editorial oversight. Further, the claims about Martin's support for the autism-vaccine link and the AIDS-polio link (denied by Martin) are asserted without any supporting evidence. Reference 3 should be deleted under WP:BLP.

The last time I contributed to this talk page I was accused falsely[15] by User:Jytdog (who also seems to edit under the name Guy, please correct if wrong) of stalking him. I wonder what will happen this time. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC).

I wonder what will happen this time - what happened is that my talk page was templated[16] by User:Jytdog. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

and more templates appear [17] on the talk page of another contributor to the RfC. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

Guy is a different editor. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

• I oppose using this source for just about anything; anybody in field reading it is going to take it with a huge grain of salt due to rather glaring COI of the author, writing about his own WP page. I was prepared to list it in his works at the bottom. I do not expect that consensus will be with me here, as folks who want to cite this source for Martin's denial can justify that per WP:WELLKNOWN. Jytdog (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. It's a one-man whinge about how all these other people who are not antivaxers have much nicer biographies. I have no idea why it was accepted, it fails every possible test of a "study", the potential for bias and the motivated reasoning are blatant. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:BLP, the claim being made about the subject of this article is poorly sourced and the subject has denied the allegation, so that should also be reported. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

BLP doesn't mean we give fringe proponents the last word, per WP:FRINGE. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Fringe proponents are covered by our BLP policy too. He disputed a poorly sourced allegation about him, I see no reason to exclude his denial per WP:FRINGE. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - if we publish an accusation about a subject that the subject denies, we absolutely publish the denial, it would be inhuman not to. In this case WP:BLP is just putting blue links around that. Isaidnoway says it quite well. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Opposers seem to be overlooking the original statement Martin had written, without checking the context. See my remark in Discussion below. JonRichfield (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The statement is true, relevant, and referenced. (Sure, that source is not reliable for the statement "Martin has never defended this idea." But it is reliable for the statement "Martin claims he has never defended this idea.") Maproom (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (Summoned by bot) Is DUE, as said above, if someone refutes something important, or says they did, we need to mention this. And regarding the source, it is reliabel enough to the type of statement we are attempting to extract. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

I struggle with people calling this an "accusation". The facts are the facts here. This is not something subjective, like how somebody feels or (to take an extreme example) whether a certain Trump statement is "racist" or not, as is argued over in Racial views of Donald Trump. Martin attacks critics of anti-vaxxers saying they "suppress dissent", and supervised and approved the PhD dissertation of a person with clear anti-vax views. These are well sourced facts in the article and the "suppression of dissent" is in the title of a paper by Martin about Wakefield. The "denial" is calling the sky red when it is quite blue. I think this is clear to the reader, which is why I am not opposing the content so much as the source. But framing this as "denying an accusation" is not the correct framework. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim that Martin is replying to is that he "defends the idea of a vaccine-autism link", which he has denied, not that he views the anti-vaccination debate as suppression of dissent. - Bilby (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Martin seems to have adopted a peculiar definition of "to defend" that allows him to deny that he "defended" ideas by attacking the opponents of those ideas. My guess is that he doesn't care about the truth or untruth of those ideas and dogmatically believes that everybody else shouldn't care either. (That approach seems to be pretty common among social scientists when it comes to scientific ideas.) That would explain why he attacked the opponents - there were not "neutral" enough for his dogma - and why he does not think he "defended" the ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

That may be why he does not believe that he has been defending the vaccine-autism link. I guess you would need to ask him. - Bilby (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Circling back to the sourcing question. Is there any other source that has published Martin's denial? Him getting this one sentence published, in a paper that he wrote, written for an academic audience that is obviously going to be reading it with a gimlet eye due to the COI, is one thing. What independent source has found his denial worthy of publishing? So what about UNDUE here? (I actually went looking, as my main objection is to the sourcing.... I can't find anybody else who gave him a platform for saying this.) Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We're writing "subject believes X". Subject is writing "no, I don't". Whether or not subject believes X is a big deal to subject's reputation. It is unconscionable not to publish this denial. --GRuban (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:GRuban no. The content is "defends the idea" - that is a behavior not a "belief". You do not appear to be responding to the actual RfC but rather to some abstract notion. Please reconsider what others and yourself have been writing here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. 90%+ of readers will read "defends the idea" as "believes in the idea". But the split of the hairs doesn't matter - we're using a source that makes a claim about the subject's opinions or actions that the subject directly repudiates. We need to publish that repudiation. --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You are obliterating important distinctions (actions are public; beliefs are private and one can only infer them) and have missed the point of the discussion about sourcing, which I am going to re-state. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Restating - what actually independent, RS have published Martin's statement that he doesn't defend anti-vax ideas? This is an important point with regard to WEIGHT. All we have now is this paper, authored by him (and yes published in a journal), where this statement is slid into a putative analysis of bias in WP. (the strangeness of the paper is made all the more clear here; Martin makes a personal statement in it, responding to the Agence Science Presse reporter's summary of his actions... and does that because WP cites the Agence Science Presse piece... bizarre. And now we want to cite the Martin paper?... House of mirrors silliness. ) Again i would not be opposing this (I think; at least not as much) if we had a good source for this. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Opposers seem to be overlooking the statement Martin wrote, without checking the context. Plenty of vax supporters (such as myself) disapprove of distortion of the cases, arguments and evidence, either favourably or unfavourably, instead of taking a fair and informed view of the various views on vaccination, however inadequate they might be in opposing vaccination rationally. Irrational opposition of irrationality is no more supportable in science than any other form of irrationality might be. So unless we have fully read the document that Martin made the remark about, and concluded that it had in fact contained no form of suppression and that Martin had no basis for reading it as such, "suppression of vaccination dissent" sounds like a perfectly valid statement, fully consistent with subsequent honest denial of ever having opposed vaccination. Even if we did not come to that conclusion on reading of the text, we have no basis for concluding in the face of Martin's denial, that he had intended any such opposition. Witch-hunting is not our brief, and the fact of his denial is just as relevant to this article as any other of his statements. In particular it is no form of support for anti-vax sentiments, and even if it were, the article is about Martin, not about vaccination or its opposition. This in not an rwar, but an encyclopaedia (I hope!) JonRichfield (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe you have actually read what Martin has written. You are also not dealing with the actual content, which is about an action not a belief. The confusion here is mind-boggling. This is also a crappy source, which you have not dealt with. I would not be as opposed to this if some actually independent source had printed it. If you do care about this, please spend time looking for such a source. I did already and found zippo, which kinda shows how much WEIGHT the real world gives to his denial of his actions. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• I propose that we make the reflexiveness of this clear and had done so here, adding However, in an article disputing the use of the Agence Science-Presse statement in this Wikipedia article, Martin wrote...". This was contested so I am bringing it here. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The current language is concise and there's no need to complicate what is a straightforward denial published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Martin is disputing the claim. Although only this rather obscure web article (seems WP:UNDUE in truth--is there another source or better source that makes this claim?) says he does, and only Wikipedia uses this source. Should we include a new section on the Wikipedia article? AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving criticism material to Criticism Paragraph

Colleagues. This is such a contested article, I thought it prudent to flag a move before tacking any action. What do people think of shifting the critical material ("Martin has been criticized ...") into the Criticism Paragraph? This seems to be a logical move. Research17 (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Give it a try. That paragraph contains tendentious material that needs looking at again. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I'll probably wait just a little longer before attempting anything. My gut-feeling is not to change any wording per se at the moment, just get the article a little better organized. Research17 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Bad idea. Please read WP:Criticism#"Criticism" section, especially "they are a symptom of bad writing". --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The opinions expressed in the above cited WP essay are interesting, especially the notion that Criticism Paragraphs are, as indicated, "a symptom of bad writing". In this case, however, the reality is that we already have a Criticism Paragraph as an integral part of the article. I suppose one could argue that the offending Paragraph might be deleted, as symptomatic of bad writing, but I think that would be a highly contested move. Rather I think it most practical to accept this Paragraph, at least for the time being, as part of the article, and proceed accordingly. Research17 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, most of the independent sources that are actually about Martin seem to be critical of his HIV denialism, anti-vaccine activism and so on, and that's not really our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Guy. However I am a little confused. Are you advocating that the Criticism Paragraph in the BM article should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Research17 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I cannot talk for Guy, but I say it should not be deleted but better integrated into the rest of the article. Fencing in critical passages so they cannot bite the poor other sentences is the "bad writing" the WP:Criticism page is talking about. Deleting them would be even worse because it would make the article distort the situation.

I will rename it "Reception" now - just small change for the better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Reception" would require a balanced discussion, especially for a noted researcher. At the moment that section only contains criticism, so "criticism" is the better term, otherwise the section would suggest that his "reception" is entirely negative. - Bilby (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that input from Hob Gadling and Bilby, and I think both comments are very useful. I want to wait to give Guy a reasonable chance to respond before doing anything further. Research17 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

A separate criticism section is almost always a bad idea. Criticism should be included in the main narrative. If that means every single paragraph ends up noting that the reception to someone's work has been negative, so be it - not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 04:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Guy. It might be useful to note that the WP Essay does state that inclusion of a Criticism Paragraph is "sometimes appropriate", and Jim Wales suggests that "in many cases [such paragraphs] are necessary, and in many cases they are not necessary". Wales also qualifies his suggestion of such paragraphs being symptomatic of bad writing by indicating this is "often" the case. So I think it is fair to say that the WP Essay is not being dogmatic on this. Leaving aside the issue of the desirability or non-desirability of a Criticism Paragraph, does anyone have any other objections to moving the criticism material to the Criticism Paragraph? Research17 (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure that it will work. I'd be more inclined to move the criticism out of that section, and instead have something on Wilyman and the rest in a bigger research section. It is hard to get my head around - I guess we need to try a couple of things and see how it goes. - Bilby (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks for that. Research17 (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wilyman

This analysis of Judith Wilyman's PhD, for which Martin was supervisor and also primary press spokesman and public defender, highlights several reasons why this article is likely to be critical in overall tone if we accurately reflect the views of the relevant professional communities: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X18316955 - I don't think I can recall an analysis quite that damning other than for egregious alt-med woo that creeps into print. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Guy for bringing this critique to our attention. Research17 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"Bias on Wikipedia"

This primary-sourced content [18] should not be included. It is not a scholarly analysis, it is merely a complaint about hos his biography was much less lovingly polished than all these other people who don't happen to be antivaccine conspiracy theorists. A neutral biography of a man who promotes things like the OPV AIDS hoax and Andrew Wakefield is necessarily going to be critical. WP:RS says that sources must be reliale, independent and secondary. Even if we counted this as reliable (debatable, in context) it fails both oft he other two tests in the RS trifecta. As per the default in fringe topics we need to be robust about including only that which has independent anaytical sources that give us context. I can find a thousand papers by antivaxers saying how biased Wikipedia is, but pretty much no reliable sources that give them any credit at all. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Well sourced-material, subject to peer review and editorial scrutiny, may be included. Blogs, are not reliable sources and may be removed under WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC).

It's not well-sourced, it's a single-author paper where the author not only has a dog in the fight, he is the fucking dog! And it's WP:PRIMARY to boot. Nobody has ever produced a single secondary source to demonstrate the significance of this claim. Not to say it doesn't exist, but people have been trying to crowbar it in various places for ages and they have never produced anything other than the primary source. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: Why do you consider primary sourced material WP:DUE? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand your question, but the paper referred to has been subject to the peer review and editorial oversight of an established scholarly journal, which the tendentious blogs it refutes have not. As the overwhelming RfC at the top of this page has already made clear, the paper is meet and just for inclusion as a source. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe: The RfC was about the sentence However, Martin disputes this claim stating, "I have never defended this idea." which is needed per BLP, I did not remove that, I removed Martin has written about bias on Wikipedia, citing his own biography as it existed in early 2016 as a case study. He has also published about sensationalism and the media, exploring stories based on a single comment in the PhD thesis of Aloysia Brooks and also discussing the media's reporting on Judith Wilyman. Both Brooks and Wileyman were students of Martin. I don't see how this is something we need to keep, as it is just self published stuff about himself that isn't a defense against any accusations. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Just commenting, but neither paper is self published, as both have been through peer review. I'm not sure if this helps, but the Wikipedia paper was cited by Hube & Fetahu (2018) "Detecting Biased Statements in Wikipedia", who wrote that Martin "shows the cases of biases which are in violation with all guidelines of NPOV, an experimental study carried out on his personal Wikipedia page". - Bilby (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: You have a point, and I am open to putting this back, but is it normal to cite someone's paper as the only source for the fact that they wrote about something, when that writing is about themselves? Tornado chaser (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It is frequently the case that papers published by a scholar are cited in Wikipedia BIOs of that scholar, see Albert Einstein, Ronald Jensen. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC).

Einstein was not writing a paper bitching about how his biography was so much less florid than all these other guys who just happened not to have a history of enabling antivaxers and AIDS denialists. Reporting his claims directly from the primary source gives undue weight to his fringe perspective. He may very well think that Andrew Wakefield is a brave whistleblower who was wronged, and that Judy Wilyman's freeze peach is infringed by poitning out that her PhD is worth less than the paper it's wriotten on, but the sources say otherwise, so a complaint written from the perspective that his beliefs on this are unassailable true and that dissent from his views is therefore bias, is at the very least contentious and would require a secondary source for context. 

In the end it is one thing to believe that PhD candidates have a right to claim that vaccines are a vast conspiracy theory or that bees are more dangerous than terrorism, quite another to assert that any article written from the perspective that these views are fringe, is evidence of bias. Martin is so deep in the world of whistleblowers and "suppressed" nutjobs that it is legitimate to require a third party assessment of any claims he makes about bias in respect of these subjects. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It is appropriate to include Martin’s reputably-sourced paper in this BLP. The paper concerns the integrity of Wikipedia, a matter of interest to many Wikipedians. Its exclusion would demonstrate that Wikipedia censors its internal critics: the very thesis that Martin holds about most powerful institutions. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC).

I added this content pointing to two peer reviewed papers, which clearly are suitable for potential inclusion. Guy, one of them is critical of you so the suggestion that Martin is biased but you aren't is not reasonable. I know Wilyman's PhD should never have been awarded, and that Martin's criticism are probably poor, but Xxanthippe is right, removing it is supporting Martin's thesis. EdChem (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea that it is a "reputably sourced paper" is highly contentious. It is a monograph, and it embodies much special pleading. Of courese as it is mainly bitching about me, I am biased. The difference is, I know it. Martin is so absolutely convinced of the holy righteousness of his campaign to protect antivaxers, AIDS denialists and other dangerous contrarians that he cannot be neutral in his own case, but he does not accept this in the paper. And that is why we would need a secondary source rather than accepting his word, based solely on his own writing, as not only the source of the claim but also the sole arbiter of its significance. We have endless precedent for excluding fringe apologia from primary sources which are not discussed at all in reliable independent sources, even in biographies of the source. There's a simple solution: if this material; is in the slightest bit significant, it will be discussed in a reliable independent secondary source. Cite that instead. To date none has been presented and I could not find one, but some here seem very motivated to include his diatribe on our bias against enablers of charlatans so surely they will turn one up. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would think an independent source is needed to establish that this is DUE, since it is someone writing about themselves, I have a hard time seeing how anything peer reviewed is automatically DUE, but I also don't think that an editor's opinion that Martin is so absolutely convinced of the holy righteousness of his campaign to protect antivaxers, AIDS denialists and other dangerous contrarians is any kind of good argument. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Martin is a medical layman attacking medicine for excluding fringe ideas; he is clearly fringe. Fringe authors attack people who disagree with them; nothing new here. Getting those attacks through peer review in the fringe proponent's own field (where the peers there are also medical laymen) is not enough to include them. Independent sources are needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Martin's article about Wikipedia does not concern medicine. Rather, it is about how editors selectively use sources and selectively apply/interpretive policies here. Martin's article has already been cited in other peer-reviewed work and no doubt will continue to be referenced in studies about bias and editor behavior on Wikipedia. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it concerns, specifically, the fact that his biography was less flattering than other biographies on people who don't support antivaxers and AIDS denialists, and presents his preferred sources and his preferred perspective as if it is the only neutral one, and therefore any other perspective is necessarily a problem. And this is absolutely emblematic of Martin's normal approach. Read his response to the critiques of the Wilyman PhD or his support for MMR fraud Andrew Wakefield. So now we just need to see what reliable independent secondary sources have said about his paper, because we cannot accept his own writing as the authority on the validity or significance of his own writing. I cannot understand why the passionate fans of Martin have so far failed to provide these secondary sources - unless of course they don't exist. In which case, WP:UNDUE because Martin has WP:FRINGE views. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

His article does not concern medicine because Martin steered the subject away from it. But the subject is still about scientists versus crackpots. Martin resents being sorted into the latter category just because he is on their side - he is still clearly anti-science and pro-crackpot. And he is still talking about meta stuff: how people act when they categorize the other anti-vaxxers, and now how they act when they categorize him. Still superficially ignoring the facts behind the disagreement. So what is new about that publication? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article probably should not be included due to the lack of independent sourcing, but how much we do or don't like it shouldn't matter, comments like the one above only perpetuate the perception of wikipedia as biased. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is biased. In favor of science, reliable sources and good evidence. Martin's bias about those three things is "don't care", "don't care" and "don't care", which he wrongly perceives as unbiased. But you are right: Independent sourcing is the relevant question for including that bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

As AugusteBlanqui notes above, the paper by Martin referred to here (‘’Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses’’. Social Science Computer Review, 36 (3), 379-388 2018 [19]) does not concern medicine. It surveys several issues of Wikipedia editing including the editing of Martin’s own BLP by User:JzG(Guy). Martin’s paper has been cited by others (‘’Detecting Biased Statements in Wikipedia’’, Christoph Hube and Besnik Fetahu, WWW ’18 Companion, April 23–27, 2018, Lyon, France) [20]) and shows signs that it might become a significant reference in the developing field of Wikipedia studies. However, the paper does contain substantial criticism of User:JzG(Guy)’s editing of Martin’s BLP. As a consequence of this, User:JzG(Guy) clearly has a WP:Conflict of interest in the matter. It would be best if he accepts a voluntary topic ban on Brian Martin topics and leaves the editing of those to independent editors. However, this does not mean that User:JzG(Guy) has no right of reply to the criticisms of his editing. Far from it. If the editing of Wikipedia is criticized by an external authority of the standing of Martin then I think that it is appropriate for Wikipedia to issue a response in defence of its reputation. I suggest that User:JzG(Guy) write a comprehensive, detailed and measured rebuttle of the criticisms of his editing for publication in the same journal ‘’Social Science Computer Review’’ that criticized him. It would be reasonable for the journal to give him equal space to reply. If it will not then User:JzG(Guy) should publish his response on this talk page or on his own talk page, so that a record will exist of the interchange that could be of historical interest for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC).

By that reasoning, Martin (or anybody else) can indirectly ban users from editing his Wikipedia page, simply by mentioning them in articles he publishes. He can repeat that until only his fans are allowed to edit it. That does not seem to be a reasonable approach. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems far-fetched. Martin would have to publish seven refereed journal articles to silence you and the other contributors to this thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)..

Wrong. One article naming all of them would be enough. But that was not my point. You want to give him the power to influence his article by a sort of miniature McCarthyism, and I used reductio ad absurdum to counter that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of uninvolved editors who can edit the article without attracting the suspicion of not having a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Be that as it may. What is important is that, on behalf of the editing reputations of Wikipedia in general and himself in particular, User:JzG(Guy) produce a measured response to Martin’s criticisms[21]. Without this, visitors to this page may come away with an impression that the criticisms go unchallenged because no challenge is possible-because they are true. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC).

Regardless of what User:JzG does here, he or she should still contact the Social Science Computer Review and offer a response. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I did, they did not even reply. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's bad form of them. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for approaching the journal. I am sorry that they did not reply to you. They should have. You can now post your rebuttal here. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

I'm not inclined to, because it doesn't help. We can manage the thing by sticking to what reliable independent secondary sources say about it. As far as I can tell, the answer tot hat is: nothing. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I note that you indicated that the Social Science Computer Review did not respond to you. Did you actually submit an article? And did you comply with the Submissions Guidelines? I ask this second question as I know that Journal Editors are often very thingy about this. Research17 (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

When I said they did not even respond, that is exactly what I meant. I contacted them and they did not even reply to the email. I strongly suspect that they are friendly with Martin, hence his ability to publish what is in effect an op-ed laden with special pleading. Guy (Help!) 08:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I might be able to assist you here. The way that scholarly publishing works is that a person must submit an article in accordance with the (online) Submission Guidelines. If you don't do this, then it is likely that the Editor(s) will not respond to you. An article should be well-argued, using proper paragraphs. I would suggest not using expletives, as you have done on this Talk Page. Now, if you did in fact comply with the Submission Guidelines, and the Social Science Computer Review has not acknowledged receipt of your submitted article, then this is clearly of concern, and I would email SAGE publishing to make a complaint. Another avenue open to you is submitting your rebuttal article to another peer-reviewed journal for publication. You believe that BM's article is "not a scholarly analysis", and, whilst I may not agree with you on this, I would certainly support your right to submit your views for publication, and encourage you to do so. What do you think? Research17 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I know how it works, I just have no confidence in this journal publishing any commentary, and even if they did they would give him a right of reply. I've been there before, with homeopathists and other cranks. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

: Thanks Guy. Interesting. I know that Martin, in his 2016 SERRC article cited in the recent critique by Wiley et alia, asserts that it is conventional scholarly practice to give a right-of-reply. I'm not so sure that Martin is correct here. My understanding is that scholarly journals generally regard critiques as distinct pieces. If a person subsequently wants to make a contribution to a debate, then he/she is entirely free to submit a piece for publication. See, for instance, the Wiley critique itself, where, although thesis-author Wilyman was being critiqued, I don't think there is any indication that Wilyman was offered an opportunity to respond. Nor should there be - if Wilyman wants to reply, it is entirely open to her to submit something for publication. I acknowledge the point you're making that you have no confidence in the Social Science Computer Review - however that journal is not the only player in town. I would think there would be hundreds of peer-reviewed journals out there who would welcome a piece from you. And they can't all be in cahoots with Martin! Research17 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Guy Since you have so far been unable or unwilling to rebut the public criticisms of your editing of the Brian Martin BLP, I suggest that, until you do, you adopt a voluntary topic ban on Brian Martin and leave editing of it to uninvolved editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC).

How about: No, for the reasons stated multiple times in the past. Martin is responsible for a widely-criticised anti-vaccination "PhD", he is known for this and for AIDS denialism, and your proposed solution basically allows any crank a right of veto over who edits their article simply by attacking them one by one offsite. The actual solution is really simple: exclude this content unless and until we have reliable independent third party coverage of it that gives the context. Which is the default for any content on Wikipedia that is challenged by any editor.

Ironically, if I did go into battle publicly with him about this, then it would be a possible problem. But I don't want to, not least because in my experience any critique of cranks and charlatans in the scientific literature has a horrible tendency to leave them with the last word, unless their article is retracted.

The meat of his complaint is: how come my biography is not as lovingly polished as those on all these other people who, purely coincidentally, don't have a history of supporting AIDS denialism and anti-vaxers (specifically including Wakefield). The journal should not have accepted the article, he absolutely cannot be neutral in assessing an article about himself. I suspect there is a back-channel or a history of chumminess which I would never break through, and I suspect that's why they never even answered the one email I did send, which had specific questions.

But none of this is a problem, because as far as I can see no third party has commented on the paper so it can simply be excluded as primary and not intellectually independent. It's either that or every single crank on the planet gets to publish their own rebuttal to the reality-based view on their nonsense, mandate its inclusion in Wikipedia, and assert a right of veto over who can edit their article. Guy (Help!) 06:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@ User:JzG It will be simple for you to copy onto this page the text of your email approach to the journal Social Science Computer Review with the questions you asked so that Wikipedia editors can judge if the journal was justified in ignoring it. A full rebuttal of Martin's paper would be even better. (Actually Martin's paper has been cited by other authors [22], which increases the need for a response.) I note that you appear to imply in your comment above that the subject of the BLP is to be numbered among cranks and charlatans. This appears to be your own view and not that of any reliable source. Such implication is in violation of WP:BLP policy and I suggest you retract it. The case for a topic ban is strengthened Xxanthippe (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

Simple, but unnecessary, not least because the newly published critique of the Wilyman PhD completely skewers a significant part of Martin's argument. The issue s really rather simple. Martin has spent so much time studying whistleblowers that he has developed a weakness for anyone who plays the whistleblower card. He supports Wakefield as a "whistleblower" despite the comprehensive evidence that Wakefield is a fraud. His complaint is not against us, it's against the sources that criticise him for credulously supporting cranks, which we include, and which are absent in the case of other academics whose work does not involve credulously supporting cranks. Guy (Help!) 05:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What newly published critique? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

I believe that Guy is referring to PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Guy. I've just looked at the Wiley article again. I think there is only one mention of Martin, and that is at the beginning, where the authors cite his comment that there is no refereed critiques of the thesis thus far, and the authors then use this, understandably, as justification for the article. It is quite clear that you are very passionate in your opposition to Martin. You are entitled to your views, and I would defend your right to express these views. This is why I continue to encourage you to put your views, in an ordered and logical form, into a professional published paper. If the case against Martin is as clear and obvious as you suggest, I think this should be simple to do. Research17 (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Scientific dissent research

I cannot find any indication that Brian Martin actually studies scientific dissent. He has studied dissent broadly and even dissent as it occurs against scientific thought, but not the dissent that occur by using science. As it is, the wikilink that was included was to a redirect, so it seems reasonable to simply say that he studies, "dissent". jps (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

And, no, I do not think it useful to quote his comrades-in-arms as a neutral descriptor of his work. James Delborne is not independent. jps (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just following up on this, why is Delborne not independent? I can't see anything suggesting that on the link you provided. - Bilby (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The current ref [23] reads:

"Brian Martin’s thirty years of studying scientific suppression (Martin, 1981, 1999a) and the phenomenon of whistleblowing more broadly (Martin, 1999b; Martin & Rifkin, 2004) provide a key foundation for conceptualizing scientific dissent"

His publications include:

• Thérèse, Sandrine and Martin, Brian. (2014) "Resist scientist! Countering degradation rituals in science". Prometheus, Vol. 32, No. 2, June, pp. 203-220.
• Martin, Brian. (2014) "Dissent in science" 'n Brent S. Steel (editor), Science and Politics: An A-to-Z Guide to Issues and Controversies (Los Angeles: Sage), pp. 145-149
• Martin, Brian. (2008) "Enabling scientific dissent". New Doctor, No. 88, December, pp. 2-5.
• Martin, Brian. (1999) "Suppression of dissent in science". Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 7, edited by William R. Freudenburg and Ted I. K. Youn (Stamford, CT: JAI Press), pp. 105-135.
• Martin, Brian. (1986) "Science policy: dissent and its difficulties". Philosophy and Social Action, Vol. 12, No. 1, January-March 1986, pp. 5-23

He's well published on the topic. I understand that he also studies dissent in other areas, but he's certainly covered dissent in relation to science extensively. - Bilby (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he thinks he has insight into science. But he has no scientific backing for his dissent. He is dissenting from science, surely. He is dissenting, that much we agree on. jps (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

He's widely published on this topic, with multiple articles and book chapters spanning over two decades specifically on scientific dissent, but you're saying that there is no evidence that he researches this? - Bilby (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that what he calls "scientific dissent" is not considered scientific by scientists. So to call it "scientific dissent" in Wikipedia's voice violates the spirit and letter of the WP:NPOV policy. jps (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What is 'scientific backing'? You don't have to be a scientist to study science empirically or theoretically. For example, see Sociology of scientific knowledge for examples of empirical research into science. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Scientific backing would be that which conforms to the standards that the practitioners of science say an argument should conform to be science. Certainly someone can study science and even do so scientifically, but that is not what we are talking about here. Martin studies dissent. He studies this in the context of science, even. What there is no confirmation of is whether the dissent Martin is studying is "scientific" or not. If it were scientific, the dissent would be labeled as such by scientists. In fact, scientists who have evaluated Martin's claims in this regard have leveled the charge that his identification of dissent is not based on science. The fact that this is even a little controversial means we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, simply claim he studies "scientific dissent". jps (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, if something dissents from science it cannot be scientific, therefore Martin cannot be studying scientific dissent? - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No. It's simply that a dissent can either be made using scientific arguments or it might be made using other arguments. Martin's identification of dissent, for example in the context of vaccines, relies on identifying dissenting arguments that are explicitly not scientific and were declared as much by the scientists who evaluated these arguments and are the relevant experts in the field of study. Martin has no use for what the scientists themselves say because he thinks they are politically compromised, but the problem is Wikipedia should not be taking sides in this dispute. Martin says he studies "scientific dissent". Scientists say he is studying dissent, but the dissent he is studying is not scientific. For us to call this dissent "scientific" without any clarification is a violation of WP:NPOV, therefore. jps (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This only applies to vaccines, even if it holds, His research goes back decades, and covers scientific dissent in multiple contexts. Whether or not people questioned his work on vaccines, it is a huge stretch to say that all of his research into scientific dissent isn't on scientific dissent. - Bilby (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it "only" applies to vaccines (it also applies to AIDS denialism, but no matter). The fact that has happened even in a limited context is enough to cause us to want to not paint with an overbroad brush in the WP:LEDE. And I'm not saying that all of his research into dissent in the context of science isn't on scientific dissent. Let's be clear, if you wanted to say that Martin studies "dissent in the context of science", that would conform to NPOV. But I'm not even convinced that it is a good idea to say that as science is not the only place Martin studies dissent. Remember, theWP:LEDE should include a WP:SUMMARY of the entirety of Martin's work. jps (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a highly questionable argument, given that we have secondary sources (such as Delborne - I'm not seeing a problem there) and large number of publications specifically on scientific dissent (I mean "Enabling scientific dissent" doesn't give much doubt on what the paper is about). But if the issue is scope I should be able to come up with alternative wording that might work. - Bilby (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It may very well be in the context of a certain community of scholars who study "dissent" in science that the term "scientific dissent" means something other than "dissent using scientific arguments". However, we don't have a way to clarify that on Wikipedia. The simplest reading, least WP:ASTONISHing way to read the phrase "scientific dissent" is to think about dissent that uses scientific arguments. That isn't really what Martin is typically talking about (though sometimes it may be). Alternative wording is preferable here but, again, I would encourage us to be as inclusive as possible in order to describe the totality of what Martin has studied. jps (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

:: The 1999 publication by Martin, "Suppression of dissent in science," examines the case of Melvin Dwaine Ruber. I'll quote the relevant passage:

Dr Melvin Dwaine Reuber is a research scientist who became one of the world’s leading critics of pesticides through his studies of their link with cancer. Through the 1960s and 1970s he had a productive and successful career, publishing over 100 scientific papers and establishing himself as a top scientist in a well-paying job. In 1981 he was head of the Experimental Pathology Laboratory at the Frederick Cancer Research Center, part of the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Then, suddenly, he received a blistering attack on his performance and professional behavior from the director of the Center, Dr Michael G. Hanna, Jr. - who had previously given him the highest commendations. The reprimand from Hanna questioned the quality of Reuber’s studies of carcinogenicity of pesticides and also called him to task for using Center letterhead for a letter that allegedly reported his private work. Even more seriously for Reuber, the substance of Hanna’s letter appeared shortly afterwards in Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News (1981), a newsletter of the petrochemical industry. Copies were circulated widely and used by industry to discredit Reuber and his work (Honorof 1988; Marshall 1984; Martin 1996a; Nelson 1981; Rushford 1990; Schneider 1982). The attack on Reuber served the interests of the pesticide industry, given that his work was a serious threat to it. His studies were important in bans placed on leading pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, and heptachlor, and his work was used around the country by opponents of pesticides. He was willing to write letters about his results, realizing that they would be used in local anti-pesticide campaigns. Reuber subsequently sued Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News. (He won substantial damages in a lower court but finally, a decade later, lost on appeal. Whether winning or losing a court case tells anything about whether suppression is involved is something that has to be examined in each individual instance.) The court case revealed that pesticide interests had complained to the National Cancer Institute about Reuber. One of these complaints had led Hanna to make an investigation that led to his reprimand.

Is Martin wrong about Reuber? Seems like a clear cut case of dissent by a scientist from Martin. (as an aside: Reuber actually seems like a good candidate for a Wikipedia article) AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you are willfully misunderstanding my point or whether you are simply ignoring it, but to be clear, the problem is that at least some of the dissent that Martin studies is not scientific. To say, without qualification, in the WP:LEDE, that Martin studies "scientific dissent" is to imply, without qualification, that all the dissent Martin studies is scientific. This is misleading. We can simply say that Martin studies dissent. Everyone agrees he studies dissent. Whether that dissent is always scientific or not is something that Wikipedia need not take a stand on. jps (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is incorrect. To say that someone studies one thing - for example "scientific dissent" - is not to say that they don't study other things as well. He can study both scientific dissent and dissent in general. - Bilby (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

In the WP:LEDE of the article if you only say a person studies "scientific dissent" and not other kinds of dissent you are either implying that is (a) the only kind of dissent that they study or (b) the only kind of dissent that they study which is worthy of summative note in the lede. Neither of those implications are warranted for this article. jps (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

jps wrote: "I am saying that what he calls "scientific dissent" is not considered scientific by scientists." The Reuber example shows that this is not accurate. He certainly does study scientific dissent based on the publications already mentioned. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Unless the only thing the lede is referring to is the Reuber example, you still have not understood my point. My statement is merely meant to point out that there is dissent that Martin has studied which is not scientific. I am not sure how to be any more clear than this. jps (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an odd argument. If you say that someone studies scientific dissent you are saying that the studies this area, but this doesn't mean that they can't also be studying other things. Leads provide a summary, so there is no reason to assume that the lead is an exhaustive list of everything that a person does. - Bilby (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see strong indication that even the majority of the dissent Martin studies is explicitly scientific. I suspect he is using the term loosely as he does with the word "theory" elsewhere. That's neither here nor there, but if we are going to be honest about this subject we need not include the qualifier "scientific" in front of "dissent" to describe what he studies. You admitted yourself that he studies dissent in other contexts. Why the obsession with claiming it is explicitly scientific? Especially when we can point to instances when Martin has spent research time studying arguments which are not scientific? jps (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to look for an alternative wording. But the start of this - that there is no evidence that he studies scientific dissent, and therefore we can't say that he does - was clearly incorrect, especially given that it was already sourced in the article. - Bilby (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's worth it to argue Oxford debate style who is right or wrong about what evidence is needed to say (a) or (b) on the talkpage, so that you agree that we can look for alternative wording is enough for me. I think the present wording is fine and it is something we can all agree to. What is so awful about that? jps (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The body of the article only covers his study of dissent in relation to scientific dissent. If the lead is to summarise the body and say that he studies dissent more broadly we'll need to expand the body. - Bilby (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The body of the article covers his study of dissent in the context of science, but it explictly points out that some of his studies are into ideas which are not scientific (and some which are pseudoscientific). So.... how do we summarize that? jps (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Other than Gorski, I'm not seeing anything claiming that that the ideas are not scientific, only that they are discredited. But I'll see what I can find. - Bilby (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiley makes these claims with respect to the PhD thesis controversy. Is the claim that Martin wasn't directly involved in studying that research? Besides that, the very fact that he studied Wakefield's pseudoscience is a straightforward indicator. Do you deny this? jps (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There are two claims on vaccination - one that he doesn't have the qualifications to "assess vaccine science", and one which is much clearer from Gorski. This is fine. However, it only applies to a single PhD thesis, not to his body of work as a whole. The rest of the article does not (at this point) claim that he is studying ideas that are not scientific, although it does say that some of those ideas (Wakefield, OPV/AIDS) have been discredited. - Bilby (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, you are saying there is not enough evidence for us to decide whether Martin's study of Wakefield's dissent was about an argument that was scientific or not? Do you think Wakefield's dissent was scientific at the time? Or is it "merely" discredited? jps (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see much point arguing this as it isn't the issue. Wakefield's research was clearly incorrect. Being incorrect makes something bad science, but it doesn't necessarily make it unscientific - a great deal of scientific theories have been shown to be false, flawed or poorly argued. Whether or Wakefield's claims were unscientific as well is a bit too much of a discussion to have here. - Bilby (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See, I don't see much point in arguing this either, but the very fact that this is the tenor of the discussion means that simply declaring what Martin studies to be "scientific" is taking a side with respect to these conflicts which, I agree, we are not going to resolve here. So I ask again, why the objection to avoid saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that Martin is studying dissent that is scientific? "in the context of science", again, is a compromise I can live with. Is it something that bothers you particularly? jps (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't bother me particularly. It doesn't follow the sources, but that is what I was leaning towards as a compromise. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, we can argue over whether it follows the sources or not (I think it does), but I'm becoming fairly convinced that this is a less-than-edifying proposition. Let's just say "in the context of science".jps (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So be it. We'll just use alternative wording, which is at least better than pretending that he doesn't study scientific dissent. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why this is so difficult. Saying "Martin studies scientific dissent" would be like saying "Bert Hölldobler studies weaver ants". Hölldobler studies ants, some of which are weaver ants. Citing a paper of his about weaver ants is not a good justification for saying "he studies weaver ants". Saying "he studies weaver ants" would be misleading readers into categorizing any ant Hölldobler studied as a weaver ant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not pushing this - but to use your analogy, what if we had a bunch of sources saying that Hölldobler specifically studied weaver ants, but we'd refuse to include that because someone decided that weaver ants are not actually weavers, and therefore we have to say only that he studies ants? :) In this case we have a bunch of material saying that Martin studies scientific dissent, but because an editor decided that some of the dissent wasn't scientific, we could only say that he studies dissent. It is moot, anyway. The compromise wording is ok, as far as it goes. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The lead for Michelangelo reads "was an Italian sculptor, painter, architect and poet." Given the variable interest in and quality of the latter two, using the analogy above the lead should be changed to "was an artist." AugusteBlanqui (talk) 07:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@AugusteBlanqui: That's actually a good suggestion. You might consider suggesting it at Talk:Michelangelo. jps (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Location of paragraph

Fellow editors. In the middle of the Research Section, there is a paragraph of some 140 words dealing with criticism of Martin's purported support for the vaccine-AIDS hypothesis. The paragraph commences: "Martin has been criticised for supporting the incorrect proposal that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS". Does anyone know why this paragraph isn't included in the Criticism Section? Research17 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Martin holds any particular view will have to be supported by sources from his writing in which he expresses the said view. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

The article does not say he holds the view that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS. It says he "supported" it. Meaning he does not agree with the experts that that view is utter crap, but instead thinks it is "worthy of consideration". The article actually says that, supported by sources from his writing. The article does not say where he gets that chutzpah, believing that he knows better than the experts (it's the Dunning-Kruger effect). --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not necessary. See WP:CRITICISM. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If the BLP says that Martin supports the view that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS, then that claim will have to be based on Martin's writings or statements under WP:BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC).

Your response should be written directly under the contribution it responds to.

Did you even look at the sources for the statement, which are given in the article? The Jenkins source, published by Oxford University Press, says Martin "promoted" that view. You can promote something without actually believing in it, and calling it "worthy of consideration" is definitely promoting it. When you say, "Consider this! It is worthy of consideration!", how is that not promotion? How is that not support?

This guy is trying to keep his cake and eat it: attack scientists for rejecting bullshit, but trying to escape criticism by not directly embracing the bullshit. Yes, he does not live in Central Crazy Town, but in the suburbs. The article already makes clear what his game is, and needs no improvement in that direction. The scientists must be allowed to defend science against his attacks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Martin has never repudiated that bullshit, as far as I can tell, but has moved on to antivaccinationism. The OP has remarkably little history other than defending Martin and his protégé Judith Wilyman. Guy (help!) 23:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you XXanthippe and Hob Gadling for that input. I may come back to what you've both written, but in the meantime I would be interested to know if other editors have any ideas on the reason why the paragraph commencing: "Martin has been criticised for supporting the incorrect proposal that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS" isn't included in the Criticism Section of the article. BTW, my best wishes for the New Year to all. Research17 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Its also incorrect to say we need him saying it, what we would need is third party RS saying this he holds this view, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Having said that there should not be a criticism section, any such material should be part of the general text.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. If it is OK, I might wait a little further before responding, in order to give opportunity to others for further comment. I thought it might also be useful for me to recast my question just a little: Given that there is a Criticism Section in this article, is there any reason why the criticism of Martin on vaccination/AIDS is not included in the Criticism Section? Research17 (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Research17, the criticism section should be folded into the main article. Given your limited focus outside of Martin and Wilyman, do you have some connection with them? Guy (help!) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy, for your input. You raise some valid points. As indicated previously, my preference is to delay a substantive reply until such time as more editors have had the opportunity to voice a response to the question I posed. I plan to post a substantive response in, say, a week or so. The question again: Given that there is a Criticism Section in this article, is there any reason why the criticism of Martin on vaccination/AIDS is not included in the Criticism Section? Research17 (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Research17, the entire criticism section should be folded into the main text (most coverage of Martin in recent years is criticism, after all). The AIDS denialism stays. Guy (help!) 06:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You do not need to respond when you have already said that you are waiting. You do not need to repeat yourself. You do not need to thank everybody for everything. Especially when you are at the same time ignoring what the last person actually said, repeating the exact question that person has just answered. That is extremely unproductive, as well as extremely impolite and unfriendly, making a mockery of your pretend courtesy. All this needlessly clutters up the page with superfluous alphanumeric characters that achieve nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor are we supposed to comment on users at all.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, we can, however, guide the inexperienced in adopting behaviours less likely to annoy others. Guy (help!) 10:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wherever else we put the comments on denialism, they also belong in the lead. And we definitely do not need quotes from Martin himself. What we can't do and in fact we don't do is make those statements in Wikipedia's own voice. Doug Weller talk 14:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Colleagues. Apologies for the delay in my response. Before I commence, one editor enquired of any connection I might hold with Martin or Wilyman. It's probably easiest for me to direct folk to the Section on my Talk Page entitled 'Question for you'. Another editor critized the nature of my posts. By way of exercising a right of reply, I respectfully disagree with these criticisms, although nevertheless I respect the right of that editor to voice his/her concerns. Anyways, now to the substance of the matter: 1) I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus on moving the paragraph under discussion to the Criticism Section. Therefore I wil be taking no further action on this, at least not for the foreseeable future. There were, I think, some interesting issues which came out of the discussion. 2) For instance, Xxanthippe suggested "The claim that Martin holds [or supports] any particular view will have to be supported by sources from his writing in which he expresses the said view". I think many would think that to be a reasonable position, although I note that Doug Weller, if I understand him correctly, demurs. This is one area where we might have a separate discussion. 3) A number of editors suggested that the Criticism Section be "folded" into the main article, and indeed this is why, if I understand them correctly, they disagreed with moving the paragraph under discussion to the Criticism Section. Fair enough. There may be some challenges in doing this, and this is another area where there might be a separate discussion. Thanks again for your input. Research17 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Brian Martin / Steven Schwartz

Is there any value in including this? There's no controversy - Martin expressed a position on academic freedom, Schwartz argued against the position, Martin briefly responded. Played out in two columns in the Australian, and of no wider significance. Do we wish to include all academic disagreements that a subject has had? - Bilby (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Leave it alone, I'm fed up with your pro-fringe edits. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, Martin's position on "academic freedom" has to be viewed int he context of the criticism raised here: he means the freedom to publish fraud without being called on it (e.g. Wilyman and Wakefield). Guy (help!) 17:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not his position at all, and that's not what the paragraph says.. - Bilby (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@jzg & @roxy. It must be a very important discussion as Martin took the effort to defend and reply to Schwartz in the national newspaper - not just a side note. This topic must be very close and central to Martin, so in respect, I think best to leave it in. CatCafe (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There's no evidence of that. This is a minor academic debate - Martin expressed an position on academic freedom, Schwartz responded, and Martin made a response in turn. Then nothing that we can find for (so far) nine years. - Bilby (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The question raised 'Do we want to include all academic disagreements a subject has had?' seems a reasonable one. Maybe the answer is yes, although I suspect this could result eventually in a very long article. Engaging in academic debate is what academics do for a living.Research17 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Research17, we include that which has been covered in reliable independent sources. Martin is known for his advocacy of a postmodernist view of academic freedom, where hysterical antivaccination conspiracy theories are seen as a valid doctoral thesis, as well as for contributions to AIDS denialism, so it's not a surprise that there has been some scrutiny. Guy (help!) 13:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Do we have any independent sources discussing this minor debate? - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Source for "Judith Wilyman PhD controversy"

Hopefully this is a minor issue. The current source for the statement that "Martin has been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy" is a 2014 piece in The Australian [24]. However, that article is primarily about Wilyman presenting a paper at a conference, not about the controversy as a whole which mostly concerns the awarding of the PhD in 2016. The New Matilda article which I'd like to replace it with [25] specifically discusses the existence of the controversy, Martin's role, and the awarding of the Doctorate to Wilyman. It seems to me that we are better off using a source that discusses the existence of the controversy and which comes from after it really blew up, as opposed to one that only relates to an earlier issue. Are there any objections to the change? - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Both sources should be used if really needed. The Australian is a long established and highly reliable source. New Matilda is an on-line paper started in 2004 and little better than a blog. By using obscure sources in the BLP you diminish its credibility and thereby slant it in favor of the subject. Do you have any COI in the matter that you should declare? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

You're asking about COI because I wanted to use a source that supports the statement, rather than one that doesn't? I'm happy to go with The Australian - but it makes sense to use a source from 2016 when the controversy really occured, rather than one from 2014 before it happened. The New Matilda article has the advantage of being about the controversy itself, so it makes sense to me to use a source that discusses the existence of the controversy and Martin's role, rather than one looking at a different, much less significant, problem that happened two years earlier. But I guess using both is a decent alternative, so let's just go with that. - Bilby (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Xxanthippe, I didn't realise that you had reverted all of my edits - I thought it was only one. To explain the others that you reverted:

• [26] Per MOS:CREDENTIAL, we don't generally use academic titles in biographies.
• [27] The source is being used to reference the statement "medical academics and the AMA raised concerns of whether Professor Martin had the necessary knowledge ...", however, while the source does say that the AMA and others criticised the thesis, it doesn't say that they criticised Martin's knowledge per se, so it failed verification. The second source at the end of the sentence includes the line "Numerous medical academics and the Australian Medical Association have criticised Dr Wilyman’s thesis, pointing out flaws in its science and raising concerns about whether the exami­ners and Professor Martin had the necessary knowledge to assess it" [28]. As such, the second source fully supports the sentance, so I removed the reference which failed verification in favour of the existing ref which did not. Both sources are from The Australian. - Bilby (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In a BLP like this where the sources are on the flimsy side it is good to make them as solid as possible. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

Yes, that is what I was doing. Are you ok with removing the source that failed verification to focus on the one that didn't? If so, I'll make the change. - Bilby (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

Bilby, I checked. It doesn't fail verification. "When a significant number of professionals in one field (which you know little about, it turns out, with your physics qualifications and appointment in the faculty of social sciences) can point out numerous and significant issues that haven’t been addressed without breaking a sweat, maybe it’s time to recognise this is not a matter of academic freedom but of academic rigour." That's neutrally summarised as his lacking appropriate knowledge. Guy (help!) 13:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

What it is sourcing is the words "where medical academics and the AMA raised concerns of whether Professor Martin had the necessary knowledge". Clearly the anonymous author didn't feel he did, but the source never says that the medical academics and the AMA didn't believe that he had the necessary knowledge. Can you find a line in this source where it states, clearly, that the "mediccal professionals and the AMA" felt that he lacked the knowledge to supervise the thesis? The quote that you are using doesn't say that. Clearly it says that they felt that the thesis lacked rigour and had problems, but where does it say that Martin had that particular problem? Meanwhile, the actual source for that line clearly states that they viewed that he lacked the knowledge. Therefore why use a soruce that doesn't say what we claim it does, when we have a source that certainly does?

We don't misattribute a claim to a source, and we certainly don't when we have another source, from the same publication and better quality, that we can use instead. Why even fight to retain a source that doesn't say what we need it to say, when we can still say it using the correct reference? We don't have to remove a single word from the article - we just have to ensure that our sourcing is accurate. - Bilby (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, and we summarise it. Which is fine. If you want to expand the text in the article, feel free. Guy (help!) 15:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't summarise it. We summarise the second source. The first source we misrepresent by claiming it says something that it does not say. The fix is easy - just use the second source, so that we don't claim that the first says something that it doesn't actually say. We loose absolutely nothing in the article and make it accurate, which is nothing but win. - Bilby (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, you read it one way, with your well-known filter of protecting antivaxers; I read it a different way with my well-known filter of not doing that. Reasonable people may differ. And in this case do. Since all parts of the statement are sourced, the existence of an additional cite that you consider redundant but I don't, isn't really a problem. Guy (help!) 10:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to the end of the sentence. At least that way one of the cites passes verification. - Bilby (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Use both. One establishes just how shitty Wilyman's work was, the other establishes just how shitty Martin's work was. Guy (help!) 08:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is inappropriate language to use on Wikipedia without a source. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, read the sources we cite. It's absolutely appropriate. Guy (help!) 20:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Neither source uses the word "Shitty". Nor should you. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, Wikipedia doesn't do euphemisms. Guy (help!) 23:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You should report what the sources say and not interpose your own opinions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, what the sources say is that Wilyman's thesis was shitty, and Martin's oversight of it was shitty. I use "shitty" here in the standard English meaning.

I could go into detail about the ways in which both were shitty, as the sources do, but there's no point, because you can read the sources yourself.

And now he has unleashed a spurious "scientist" on the world, who stands up in court arguing that a parent who wants their child vulnerable to infectious disease should be given more deference than an opposing parent who does not. And children will suffer and die, because that is what happens with vaccine refuseniks. Guy (help!) 23:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand what you are getting at. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, really? OK. A scientist analyses the "PhD thesis". A doctor described it as containing "a tribute to a who’s who of the global anti-vaccination junk science community". Anti-vaccination activist turns expert witness in family court immunisation brawl (one of at least four cases where she has charged large sums for bringing scienciness to antivax arguments).

Among the references are Mark Blaxill, Dan Olmstead, the Geiers (banned from appearing as expert witnesses), Shaw and Tomljenovic (paid by antivax groups to create evidence that aluminium in vaccines causes autism), a reference to Schoenfeld's refuted "ASIA", crank groups like S.A.N.E Vax.

Now, a naive PhD supervisor might not necessarily realise that these have no place in a supposedly reality-based document, but Martin knows Wakefield and has supported him, wrote on the suppression of vaccination dissent, cited in the thesis, and was already caught out spreading the OPV-AIDS hypothesis, which turned out to be an antivax conspiracy theory.

So: Wilyman, a known anti-vaccination activist, chose a supervisor with a history of publishing material supportive of anti-vax conspiracies, in a department that lacked the reviewer knowledge to spot the antivax bullshit. One reviewer nonetheless said it should not be awarded, citing poor scholarship, selective evidence and the like. That reviewer was removed and another subtituted.

And now Wilyman uses her doctoral title in her professional antivaccination career - a career which pre-dates the PhD - while the science community;'s view is "PhD thesis opposing immunisation: Failure of academic rigour with real-world consequences.

And that's why it's relevant. Shoddy work is just shoddy work, but a history of boosting anti-vaccinationism, including pretty much the only explicitly antivax PhD I can find on recent record, tends to get you some blowback. And Martin considers that blowback to be bias on the part of the scientific community, because in his mind he could not possibly be wrong. That lack of intellectual humility is not scientific. Guy (help!) 08:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Structure of BLP

To be consistent with other articles the BLP should consist of a lede, which summarizes the article without references, a sourced biographical section, a summary of the subject's work and a criticism section. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Xxanthippe I'm inclined to agree. My proposal two weeks ago was basically a small step along those same lines, although tweaked a little. BTW, I hope my silence on your comments and the comments of other editors is not taken as rudeness. I do plan to respond in the next few days. Obviously the big challenge with this Talk Page is working towards dialogue and ultimately some consensus. Difficult, but not impossible. Research17 (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, aka "this should read liek all the biographies of scientists who haven't spent half their careers enabling antivaccination bullshit".

No thanks. Guy (help!) 20:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy. I'm not sure using the structure as outlined above (lede, biography, work, criticism) would necessarily weaken or diminish the critique of Martin, a critique which you and others have eloquently articulated. Now, I suspect that you might prefer not to have a Criticism Section as such, as indeed was the position of other editors last month. In this case, however, the criticisms of Martin could be integrated into the main part of the article, along the lines of what was suggested by other editors last month, and of course subject to the normal Wikipedia constraints of reliable sources and no libel. Research17 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Research17, it just sounds like the perennial calls on articles about Wakefield, Sheldrake and the rest to make their bios look like all those other scientists who are known to a small audience of their peers for diligent work, rather than known to half the world for promoting dangerous bullshit. Guy (help!) 08:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy. Fair enough, although I've just checked out the Rupert Sheldrake Wikipedia article, which I assume is what you're referring to. The article is very forthright in its criticism of Sheldrake, although the structure is: lede, life and career, selected books, public reception, origins and philosophy of morphic resonance, and full list of books. This seems not altogether different from what was suggested for the Martin article on 8 February (see above), at least in the first few sections. Research17 (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)